Earthquake Risk Assessment Using GIS-Based Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): The Case of Bitlis Province (Türkiye)

Abstract

The risk level of natural disasters such as earthquakes depends on many factors. Some of these are direct hazards, while others are vulnerability factors that increase the risk. In this regard, risk assessment should be performed by evaluating the hazard and vulnerability factors together. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a powerful tool for co-evaluating such multiple decision criteria. The spatial visualization of the results facilitates the direct assessment of risks as well. In the present study, the seismic risk assessment of the Bitlis province in Eastern Anatolia, which has a high seismic risk, was performed by using the GIS-based AHP method. Among many criteria, six effective criteria on earthquake risk such as seismicity, demographic and topographic criteria were taken into consideration based on expert decision makers. It is concluded that the results obtained from the study were quite successful in terms of determining the seismic risks of the study area. Accordingly, while the risks are high in densely populated settlements with high peak ground acceleration (PGA), the risk decreases according to soil and land use.

Keywords

• Earthquake
• Geographic Information System
• Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
• Seismic Risk

References

1. AFAD (2018). Turkey Earthquake Hazard Map, https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/TDTH/main.xhtml. Accessed 16 December 2021.
2. Akinci, H., Ozalp, A.Y., Kılıçer, S.T. (2015). Landslide Susceptibility Assessment in Planned Areas Using Geographical Information Systems and AHP Method: The Case of Artvin. Journal of Natural Hazards and Environment, 1(1-2):40-53.
3. Alkan, H., Buyuksarac, A., Bektas, O., Isik, E. (2021). Coulomb stress change before and after 24.01.2020 Sivrice (Elazığ) Earthquake (Mw=6.8) on the East Anatolian Fault Zone. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 14(23):1-12.
4. 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
5. Can, G. (2019). Using geographical information systems and analytical hierarchy method for site selection for wind turbine plants: The case of Çanakkale province, Master Thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey.
6. Chakraborty, S., Mukhopadhyay, S. (2019). Assessing flood risk using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and geographical information system (GIS): application in Coochbehar district of West Bengal, India. Natural Hazards 99: 247–274, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03737-7
7. Cil, I., Arman, H. (2001). An Application of Analytical Hierarchy Method in Determining the New Settlement of Adapazarı (in Turkish). Journal of SAU Institute of Science and Technology, 5(1): 13-20.
8. Copernicus (2021). Data of land use from Copernicus land Monitoring Service. https://land.copernicus.eu/, Accessed 16 December 2021.

9. Dagdeviren, M., Akay, D., Kurt, M. (2004). Analytical Hierarchy Process for Job Evaluation and Application. J Fac Eng Arch Gazi Univ, 19(2): 131-138.
10. Dandapat, K., Panda, G.K. (2017). Flood vulnerability analysis and risk assessment using analytical hierarchy process. Model Earth Syst Environ 3: 1627–1646.
11. Darko, A., Chan, A.P.C., Ameyaw, E.E., Owusu, E.K., Parn, E., Edwards, D.J. (2019). Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. International Journal of Construction Management 19: 436–452. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15623599.2018.1452098
12. Demirkiran, D.G. (2019). Effect analysis of Gediz graben and environment earthquake according to geographic information systems and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (in Turkish). Master Thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Turkey.
13. Ekmekcioglu, O., Koc, K., Ozger, M. (2021). District based flood risk assessment in Istanbul using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 35: 617–637.
14. Erden, T., Karaman, H. (2012). Analysis of earthquake parameters to generate hazard maps by integrating AHP and GIS for Kucukcekmece region. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12: 475–483.
15. Geofabrik (2021). Maps and Data, https:// www.geofabrik.de/data/. Accessed 16 December 2021. Geologic Hazards Science Center (2011). https:// geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2002 /documentation/ parm.php, Accessed 07 May 2021.
16. Ghosh, A., Kar, S.K. (2018). Application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for flood risk assessment: a case study in Malda district of West Bengal, India. Natural Hazards 94: 349–368.
17. Gurgun, A.P., 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
18. 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
19. HGM (2021). Republic of Turkiye Ministry of National Defence General Directorate of Mapping. Turkish administrative borders data. https://www.harita.gov.tr/, Accessed 16 December 2021.
20. Isik, E., Aydin, M.C., Bakis, A., Ozluk, M.H. (2012). The Faults near Bitlis and Seismicity of the Region (in Turkish). BEU Journal of Science 1(2): 153-169.
21. Isik, E. (2010). Bitlis City Earthquake Performance Analysis, PhD. Thesis, Sakarya University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, Turkiye.
22. Isik, E., Aydin, M.C., Buyuksarac, A. (2020). 24 January 2020 Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake damages and determination of earthquake parameters in the region. Earthquakes and Structures 19(2): 145-156.
23. Jankowski, P. (1995). Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria decision-making methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 9(3): 251-273.
24. Malczewski, J. (2004). GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview. Progress in Planning 62: 3-65.
25. Masood, M., Takeuchi, K. (2012). Assessment of flood hazard, vulnerability and risk of mid-eastern Dhaka using DEM and 1D hydrodynamic model. Nat Hazards 61: 757–770. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0060-x
26. Moradi, M., Delavar, M.R., Moshiri, B. (2015). A GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making approach for seismic vulnerability assessment using quantifier-guided OWA operator: a case study of Tehran, Iran, Annals of GIS, 21(3):209-222, DOI: 10.1080/19475683.2014.966858.
27. MTA (2021). Data of geological structure from GeoScience Mab Viewer and Drawing Editor, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration of Türkiye, http:// yerbilimleri.mta.gov.tr/anasayfa.aspx, Accessed 16 December 2021.
28. Myers, J.H., Alpert, M.I. (1968). Determinant buying attitudes: Meaning and Measurement. Journal of Marketing, 32(4): 13-20.
29. Ozsahin, E. (2014). Earthquake damage risk analysis in Tekirdag Province using geographic information systems (GIS) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of Human Sciences 11(1): 861-879.
30. Peng, Y. (2015). Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods. Ann Oper Res 234: 95–110. DOI 10.1007/s10479-012-1253-8
31. Saaty, T.L. (1977). A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(3): 234-281.
32. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 20–25.
33. Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1):9–26.
34. Salifu, E., Agyei Agyare, W., Abdul-Ganiyu, S. (2022). Evaluation of Land Suitability for Crop Production in Northern Ghana Using GIS and AHP Based Techniques. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 9(4), 46-56. https://doi.org/ 10.30897/ijegeo.1022275
35. Savun-Hekimoğlu, B., Erbay, B., Burak, Z. S., Gazioğlu, C. (2021). A Comparative MCDM Analysis of Potential Short-Term Measures for Dealing with Mucilage Problem in the Sea of Marmara. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 8(4), 572-580. https://doi.org/ 10.30897/ijegeo.1026107
36. Sevgi Birincioglu, E. (2021). Disaster risk analysis of Bitlis province using geographical information systems and analytical hierarchy method. Master Thesis, Bitlis Eren University Graduate Education Institute, Department of Emergency and Disaster Management, Turkey.
37. Subramanian, N., Ramanathan, R. (2012). A review of applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in operations management. Int. J Production Economics 138: 215-241.
38. TAD (2021). Agricultural Land Evaluation Portal (TAD Portal), Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry General Directorate of Agricultural Reform. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/, Accessed 16 December 2021.
39. Taherdoost, Hamed, Mitra Madanchian. (2023). "Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts" Encyclopedia 3, no. 1: 77-87. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006
40. Timor, M. (2011). Analytical Hierarchy Process (in Turkish). First edition, Turkmen Publications, Istanbul, Turkey. 29-51.
41. TUIK (2021). Population data from Data Portal for Statistical, Turkish Statistical Institute, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/, Accessed 16 December 2021.
42. USGS (2021). EarthData and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for Bitlis province, United States Geological Survey (USGS). https://www.usgs.gov/, Accessed 16 December 2021.
43. Wang, Y., Liu, J., Elhag, T. (2008). An Integrated AHP-DEA Methodology for Bridge Risk Assessment. Computers & Industrial Engineering 54(3):513-525.
44. Whole Building Design Guide (2010) http://www.wbdg.org/resources/seismic_design.php, Accessed 02 February 2021.
45. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. (2004). At risk, natural hazard, people’s vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge, London, pp 49–52.
46. Yalcin, A. (2007). The Use of Analytical Hierarchy Method and GIS in the Production of Landslide Susceptibility Maps (in Turkish). Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Selcuk University, 22(3): 1 - 14.
47. Yalcin, C., Sabah L. (2018). Creation of Earthquake Hazard Analysis of Adiyaman Province via GIS-Based Fuzzy Logic and AHP Methods (in Turkish). Adıyaman University, Journal of Engineering Sciences, 8: 101-113.
48. Yang, X.L., Ding, J.H., 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
49. Yavasoglu, F., Ozden Ç.V. (2017). Earthquake damage risk analysis using geographical information systems based analytical hierarchy process: Kadıköy example (in Turkish). TUBAV Science 10(3):28-38.