Heyelan Duyarlılığının Değerlendirilmesinde Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) ve Frekans Oranı (FR) Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması: Erzincan Kemah-Kömür Dere Havzasında Örnek Bir Çalışma

Öz

Bu çalışma, Erzincan-Kemah Kömür Dere Havzası'nda heyelan duyarlılığını haritalamak amacıyla Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) ve Frekans Oranı (FR) yöntemlerini karşılaştırmaktadır. Modellerin performansı, Alıcı İşletim Karakteristiği (ROC) eğrisi, F1-Skoru ve çakışma oranı analizi gibi metriklerle kapsamlı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, istatistiksel tabanlı FR modelinin Eğri Altındaki Alan (AUC = 0.884, F1-Skoru = 0.87), uzman görüşüne dayalı AHP modeline (AUC = 0.699, F1-Skoru = 0.68) göre tüm metriklerde önemli ölçüde daha yüksek performans gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Modellerin pratik geçerliliğini gösteren çakışma oranı analizinde, mevcut heyelan alanlarının %92.7'si FR haritasındaki 'Yüksek' ve 'Çok Yüksek' duyarlılık sınıfları içinde yer alırken, bu oran AHP haritasında %73.7 olarak bulunmuştur. Bu bulgular, FR yönteminin bölgedeki riskli alanların tespiti ve arazi kullanım planlaması için güvenilir ve hassas bir araç olduğunu kanıtlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP)
• Frekans Oranı (FR)
• Heyelan
• Kemah
• Erzincan.

Comparison Of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) And Frequency Ratio (FR) Methods In Landslide Susceptibility Assessment: A Case Study In Kemah-Kömür Stream Basin, Erzincan

Öz

This study compares the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Frequency Ratio (FR) methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kömür Stream Basin, Kemah-Erzincan. The performance of the models was comprehensively evaluated using metrics including the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, F1-Score, and overlap rate analysis. The results revealed that the statistics-based FR model Area Under the Curve (AUC) = 0.884, F1-Score = 0.87 significantly outperformed the expert opinion-based AHP model (AUC = 0.699, F1-Score = 0.68) for across all metrics. In the overlap rate analysis, which demonstrates the practical validity of the models, 92.7% of the existing landslide areas fell within the 'High' and 'Very High' susceptibility classes on the FR map compared to 73.7% on the AHP map. These findings prove that the FR method is a reliable and precise tool for identifying high-risk areas and for land-use planning in the region.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
• Frequency Ratio
• (FR)
• Landslides
• Kemah
• Erzincan.

Kaynakça

1. Abdı, A., Bouamrane, A., Karech, T., Dahri, N., & Kaouachi, A. (2021). Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using GIS-based Fuzzy Logic and the Analytical Hierarchical Processes Approach: A Case Study in Constantine (North-East Algeria). Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 39(8), 5675–5691. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10706-021-01855-3
2. Abedini, M., & Tulabi, S. (2018). Assessing LNRF, FR, and AHP models in landslide susceptibility mapping index: a comparative study of Nojian watershed in Lorestan province, Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences, 77(11), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12665-018-7524-1/TABLES/4
3. Ada, M. (2018). Alakır çayı (Antalya) havzasının uzaktan algılama ve coğrafi bilgi sistemleri kullanılarak heyelan duyarlılık haritalandırılması. http://acikerisim.akdeniz.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/123456789/3744
4. Ahmad, M. S., MonaLisa, & Khan, S. (2023). Comparative analysis of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and frequency ratio (FR) models for landslide susceptibility mapping in Reshun, NW Pakistan. Kuwait Journal of Science, 50(3), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.KJS.2023.01.004
5. Akıncı, H., Doğan, S., & Kılıçoğlu, C. (2017). Lenslide susceptıbılıty mappıng of canık (samsun) dıstrıct usıng bayesıan probabılıty and frequency ratıo models. Selcuk University Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology, 5(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.15317/SCITECH.2017.89
6. Arabameri, A., Pradhan, B., Rezaei, K., & Lee, C. W. (2019). Assessment of landslide susceptibility using statistical- and artificial intelligence-based FR-RF integrated model and multiresolution DEMs. Remote Sensing, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/RS11090999
7. Asmare, D. (2023). Application and validation of AHP and FR methods for landslide susceptibility mapping around choke mountain, northwestern ethiopia. Scientific African, 19, e01470. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCIAF.2022.E01470
8. Avcı, V. (2016). Gökdere Havzası ve Çevresinin (Bingöl Güneybatısı) Frekans Oranı Metoduna Göre Heyelan Duyarlılık Analizi. Marmara Geographical Review, 34, 160–177. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/marucog/issue/24661/260871

9. Aydın, M. C., Sevgi Birincioğlu, E., & Büyüksaraç, A. (2022). Landslide Susceptibility Mapping in Bitlis Province using GIS-based AHP method. Türk Uzaktan Algılama Ve CBS Dergisi, 3(2), 160-171. https://doi.org/10.48123/rsgis.1119723
10. Aydoğan, E., & Dağ, S. (2023). İstatistiksel Yöntemlerle Yukarı Karasu Havzası’nın Kuzeydoğu Bölümünün (Erzurum) Heyelan Duyarlılık Analizi. Türk Uzaktan Algılama ve CBS Dergisi, 4(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.48123/RSGIS.1202140
11. Ayalew, L., Yamagishi, H., Marui, H., & Kanno, T. (2005). Landslides in Sado Island of Japan: Part II. GIS-based susceptibility mapping with comparisons of results from two methods and verifications. Engineering Geology, 81(4), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGGEO.2005.08.004
12. Babitha, B. G., Danumah, J. H., Pradeep, G. S., Costache, R., Patel, N., Prasad, M. K., Rajaneesh, A., Mammen, P. C., Ajin, R. S., & Kuriakose, S. L. (2022). A framework employing the AHP and FR methods to assess the landslide susceptibility of the Western Ghats region in Kollam district. Safety in Extreme Environments, 4(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/S42797-022-00061-5/FIGURES/9
13. Bagal, G., Sorate, R., & Desai, P. (2024). Geo-Technical and Geological Study, Management Plan of Landslide. Journal of Advances in Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.29070/wc8dv634.
14. Başara, A. C., & Şişman, Y. (2022). Frekans oranı, kanıt ağırlığı ve lojistik regresyon yöntemleri kullanılarak heyelan duyarlılık haritalarının CBS tabanlı karşılaştırılması. Nigde Omer Halisdemir University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 11(3), 647–660. https://doi.org/10.28948/NGUMUH.1065284
15. Berber, S. (2023). Güzelyalı-Lapseki (Çanakkale) arasındaki bölgenin heyelan tehlikesinin değerlendirilmesi. http://dspace.balikesir.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/20.500.12462/13365
16. Berhane, G., Gebrehiwot, A., & Abay, A. (2023). Landslide susceptibility mapping in the Adwa Volcanic Mountain Plugs, Northern Ethiopia: a comparative analysis of frequency ratio and analytical hierarchy process methods. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2023.2281244
17. Bhagya, S. B., Sumi, A. S., Balaji, S., Danumah, J. H., Costache, R., Rajaneesh, A., Gokul, A., Chandrasenan, C. P., Quevedo, R. P., Johny, A., Sajinkumar, K. S., Saha, S., Ajin, R. S., Mammen, P. C., Abdelrahman, K., Fnais, M. S., & Abioui, M. (2023). Landslide Susceptibility Assessment of a Part of the Western Ghats (India) Employing the AHP and F-AHP Models and Comparison with Existing Susceptibility Maps. Land 2023, Vol. 12, Page 468, 12(2), 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/LAND12020468
18. Biswas, B., Rahaman, A., & Barman, J. (2023). Comparative Assessment of FR and AHP Models for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping for Sikkim, India and Preparation of Suitable Mitigation Techniques. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 99(6), 791–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12594-023-2386-X/METRICS
19. Dağdelenler, G. (2020). İki Farklı Örneklem Tekniği Kullanılarak Oluşturulan Heyelan Duyarlılık Haritalarının Frekans Oranı (FO) Yöntemi ile Karşılaştırılması. Jeoloji Mühendisliği Dergisi, 44(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.24232/JMD.740509
20. Demirbilek, S., & Turoğlu, H. (2024). Frekans Oranı Yöntemi Kullanılarak Arsuz Çayı Havzası Heyelan Duyarlılık Analizi. Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi(13), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.46453/jader.1496249.
21. Demirel, Ş. C., & Hastaoğlu, K. Ö. (2022). CBS Tabanlı AHP Yöntemi Kullanılarak Oluşturulan Sivas Koyulhisar Heyelan Duyarlılık Haritalarının Güvenilirliğinin Araştırılması. Journal of Disaster and Risk, 5(2), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.35341/AFET.1071728
22. Gakaev, R. (2021). Exogenous relief-forming processes and phenomena on the territory of the Chechen Republic. SHS Web of Conferences. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202112803001.
23. Gholami, M., Ghachkanlu, E. N., Khosravi, K., & Pirasteh, S. (2019). Landslide prediction capability by comparison of frequency ratio, fuzzy gamma and landslide index method. Journal of Earth System Science, 128(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12040-018-1047-8/FIGURES/7
24. Giarola, A., Schoorl, J. M., Baartman, J. E. M., Bordoni, M., Tarolli, P., Zucca, F., Heckmann, T., & Meisina, C. (2024). Exploiting the land use to predict shallow landslide susceptibility: A probabilistic implementation of LAPSUS-LS. CATENA, 246, 108437. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CATENA.2024.108437
25. Görüm, T., Bayrakdar, C., Avdan, U., & Çömert, R. (2017). Geomorphology of the Mount Akdag landslide, Western Taurus range (SW Turkey). Journal Of Maps, 13(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2017.1280424
26. Gudiyangada Nachappa, T., Kienberger, S., Meena, S. R., Hölbling, D., & Blaschke, T. (2020). Comparison and validation of per-pixel and object-based approaches for landslide susceptibility mapping. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 11(1), 572–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2020.1736190
27. Hasekioğulları, G. D., & Ercanoglu, M. (2012). A new approach to use AHP in landslide susceptibility mapping: A case study at Yenice (Karabuk, NW Turkey). Natural Hazards, 63(2), 1157–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11069-012-0218-1
28. Hoa, P. V., Tuan, N. Q., Hong, P. V., Thao, G. T. P., & Binh, N. A. (2023). GIS-based modeling of landslide susceptibility zonation by integrating the frequency ratio and objective–subjective weighting approach: a case study in a tropical monsoon climate region. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/FENVS.2023.1175567
29. Hoşgören, M. Y. (2017). Jeomorfoloji Terimleri Sözlüğü. Çantay Kitabevi.
30. Hong, H., Chen, W., Xu, C., Youssef, A. M., Pradhan, B., & Tien Bui, D. (2017). Rainfall-induced landslide susceptibility assessment at the Chongren area (China) using frequency ratio, certainty factor, and index of entropy. Geocarto International, 32(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2015.1130086
31. İzbırak, R. (1975). Coğrafya Terimleri Sözlüğü, İstanbul, Mehtupla Öğretim Merkezi Yayınları: 15, Ankara.
32. Khan, H., Shafique, M., Khan, M. A., Bacha, M. A., Shah, S. U., & Calligaris, C. (2019). Landslide susceptibility assessment using Frequency Ratio, a case study of northern Pakistan. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 22(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJRS.2018.03.004
33. Kılıçoğlu, C. (2020). Frekans Oranı Metodu ve Bayesyen Olasılık Modeli Kullanılarak Samsun İli Vezirköprü İlçesinin Heyelan Duyarlılık Haritasının Üretilmesi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(1), 138-154. https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.658662
34. Kumar, V., Gupta, V., Jamir, I., & Chattoraj, S. L. (2019). Evaluation of potential landslide damming: Case study of Urni landslide, Kinnaur, Satluj valley, India. Geoscience Frontiers, 10(2), 753–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GSF.2018.05.004
35. Kumtepe, P., Nurlu, Y., Cengiz, T., & Sütçü, E. (2011). Heyelan Duyarlılık Haritalarının Hazırlanmasında Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemlerinin Kullanımı. Journal of Geodesy and Geoinformation, 104.1, 41–46. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hkmojjd/issue/53172/705374
36. Lee, S., & Pradhan, B. (2007). Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor, Malaysia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Landslides, 4(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10346-006-0047-Y/FIGURES/3
37. Lee, S., & Sambath, T. (2006). Landslide susceptibility mapping in the Damrei Romel area, Cambodia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Environmental Geology, 50(6), 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00254-006-0256-7/FIGURES/4
38. Li, L., Lan, H., Guo, C., Zhang, Y., Li, Q., & Wu, Y. (2017). A modified frequency ratio method for landslide susceptibility assessment. Landslides, 14(2), 727–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10346-016-0771-X/FIGURES/9
39. Li, L., Nahayo, L., Habiyaremye, G., & Christophe, M. (2022). Applicability and performance of statistical index, certain factor and frequency ratio models in mapping landslides susceptibility in Rwanda. Geocarto International, 37(2), 638–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2020.1730451
40. Mokarram, M., & Zarei, A. R. (2018). Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using Fuzzy-AHP. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 36(6), 3931–3943. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10706-018-0583-Y
41. Mondal, S., & Maiti, R. (2013). Integrating the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the frequency ratio (FR) model in landslide susceptibility mapping of Shiv-khola watershed, Darjeeling Himalaya. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 4(4), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13753-013-0021-Y/METRICS
42. Ataol, A. (2015). Çankırı-Ankara karayolu boyunca (Akyurt-Çankırı arası) heyelan risk bölgelerinin belirlenmesi. Journal of Geography, 29(29), 51–69. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iucografya/issue/25074/264646
43. Nicu, I. C., & Asăndulesei, A. (2018). GIS-based evaluation of diagnostic areas in landslide susceptibility analysis of Bahluieț River Basin (Moldavian Plateau, NE Romania). Are Neolithic sites in danger? Geomorphology, 314, 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2018.04.010
44. Ozdemir, A. (2020). A Comparative Study of the Frequency Ratio, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Artificial Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic Methods for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping: Taşkent (Konya), Turkey. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 38(4), 4129–4157. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10706-020-01284-8
45. Park, S., Choi, C., Kim, B., & Kim, J. (2013a). Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, analytic hierarchy process, logistic regression, and artificial neural network methods at the Inje area, Korea. Environmental Earth Sciences, 68(5), 1443–1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12665-012-1842-5/TABLES/7
46. Pathak, Y. P., Dholakia, M. B., Prakash, I., Jagad, G. D., & Gohil, K. B. (2024). Evaluating Landslide Susceptibility in the Lower Sutlej Basin, Himachal Pradesh, India Using GIS: A Comparative Study of the Frequency Ratio and Analytical Hierarchy Process Methods. Nanotechnology Perceptions, 20(S5). https://doi.org/10.62441/NANO-NTP.V20IS5.67
47. Poudyal, C. P., Chang, C., Oh, H. J., & Lee, S. (2010). Landslide susceptibility maps comparing frequency ratio and artificial neural networks: A case study from the Nepal Himalaya. Environmental Earth Sciences, 61(5), 1049–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12665-009-0426-5/FIGURES/9
48. Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process?. Mathematical Models for Decision Support. NATO ASI Series(48), s. 109-121.
49. Saaty, T. L. (2004). Decision making — the Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 2004 13:1, 13(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11518-006-0151-5
50. Saha, A., Mandal, S., & Saha, S. (2020). Geo-spatial approach-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchical process, frequency ratio, logistic regression and their ensemble methods. SN Applied Sciences, 2(10), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/S42452-020-03441-3/TABLES/9
51. Shahabi, H., Khezri, S., Ahmad, B. Bin, & Hashim, M. (2014a). Landslide susceptibility mapping at central Zab basin, Iran: A comparison between analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Catena, 115, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CATENA.2013.11.014
52. Sharma, S., & Mahajan, A. K. (2019). A comparative assessment of information value, frequency ratio and analytical hierarchy process models for landslide susceptibility mapping of a Himalayan watershed, India. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 78(4), 2431–2448. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10064-018-1259-9/TABLES/7
53. Silalahi, F. E. S., Pamela, Arifianti, Y., & Hidayat, F. (2019). Landslide susceptibility assessment using frequency ratio model in Bogor, West Java, Indonesia. Geoscience Letters, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40562-019-0140-4/FIGURES/12
54. Solaimani, K., Mousavi, S. Z., & Kavian, A. (2013). Landslide susceptibility mapping based on frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 6(7), 2557–2569. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12517-012-0526-5/FIGURES/6
55. Sunkar , M., & Avcı, V. (2016). Şepker Çayı Aşağı Havzası’nın (Adıyaman Batısı) Heyelan Duyarlılık Analizi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 26(2), 13-43.
56. Taş, M. A., Şenol, C., & Yanık, E. (2024). Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHS) Metodu İle Of İlçesi’nde (Trabzon) Heyelan Risk Duyarlılığı Analizi. Journal of Disaster and Risk, 7(1), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.35341/AFET.1361149
57. Tesfa, C. (2022). GIS-Based AHP and FR Methods for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping in the Abay Gorge, Dejen–Renaissance Bridge, Central, Ethiopia. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 40(10), 5029–5043. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10706-022-02197-4/FIGURES/9
58. Thomas, A. V., Saha, S., Danumah, J. H., Raveendran, S., Prasad, M. K., Ajin, R. S., & Kuriakose, S. L. (2021a). Landslide Susceptibility Zonation of Idukki District Using GIS in the Aftermath of 2018 Kerala Floods and Landslides: a Comparison of AHP and Frequency Ratio Methods. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/S41651-021-00090-X
59. Turner, A. (2018). Social and environmental impacts of landslides. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 3, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-018-0175-y.
60. Üzel Günini, N., & Öztürk, D. (2021). Van İli Heyelan Duyarlılığının Frekans Oranı Yöntemiyle Analizi. Uludağ University Journal of The Faculty of Engineering, 26(3), 865–884. https://doi.org/10.17482/UUMFD.969246
61. Vakhshoori, V., & Zare, M. (2016). Landslide susceptibility mapping by comparing weight of evidence, fuzzy logic, and frequency ratio methods. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7(5), 1731–1752. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2016.1144655
62. Vargas, L. G. (2011). Thomas L. Saaty. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, 147, 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6281-2_31
63. Wang, Q., & Li, W. (2017). A GIS-based comparative evaluation of analytical hierarchy process and frequency ratio models for landslide susceptibility mapping. Physical Geography, 38(4), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723646.2017.1294522
64. Yan, F., Zhang, Q., Ye, S., & Ren, B. (2019). A novel hybrid approach for landslide susceptibility mapping integrating analytical hierarchy process and normalized frequency ratio methods with the cloud model. Geomorphology, 327, 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2018.10.024
65. Yazar, S., & Göster, K. (2023). Frekans oranı yöntemiyle coğrafi bilgi sistemi ortamında heyelan duyarlılık haritasının üretilmesi: Manisa, Demirci, Tekeler Köyü örneği. Geomatik, 8(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.29128/GEOMATIK.1108735
66. Xiao, X., Zou, Y., Huang, J., Luo, X., Yang, L., Li, M., Yang, P., Ji, X., & Li, Y. (2024). An interpretable model for landslide susceptibility assessment based on Optuna hyperparameter optimization and Random Forest. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2024.2347421.
67. Web Sources
68. Yerbilimleri Harita Görüntüleyici. (n.d.). Retrieved 13 January 2025, from https://yerbilimleri.mta.gov.tr/anasayfa.aspx
69. Sentinel-2 | Copernicus Data Space Ecosystem. (n.d.). Retrieved 13 January 2025, from https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/explore-data/data-collections/sentinel-data/sentinel-2
70. HGM | Harita Genel Müdürlüğü- Ulusal Haritacılık Kurumu. (n.d.). Retrieved 13 January 2025, from https://www.harita.gov.tr/urun/sayisal-yuzey-modeli-5-m-seviye-0-sym5-l0-/1”