Investigation of GIS-based Analytical Hierarchy Process for Multi-Criteria Earthquake Risk Assessment: The Case Study of Kahramanmaras Province

Abstract

The risk level that earthquakes pose to the environment depends on different factors. Correctly analyzing the effects of these factors is an important step to identify risky areas before the earthquake. Geographic information systems (GIS) provide essential tools for determining the weights of these factors, analyzing them, and creating risk maps. Two devastating earthquakes occurred in Türkiye in February 2023, centered in Kahramanmaras. In this study, a research was carried out to estimate the damage caused by the earthquake in Kahramanmaras by analyzing pre-earthquake data with GIS. The determined factors are seven: fault line risk zone, epicenter risk zone, depth of the magnitude, slope, curvature, population density and building density. These factors have created different weighting scenarios with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). As a result of the analyses, risk maps were produced. Evaluations were made by comparing the risk maps produced with DPM. Considering all the factors, these results highlight the importance of considering multiple risk criteria when evaluating the potentiality of damage in the study region.

Keywords

• Earthquake
• Kahramanmaras
• Geographic Information System
• Analytical Hierarchy Process
• Risk Assessment

References

1. Adams, B. J., Huyck, C. K., Mansouri, B., Eguchi, R. T., Shinozuka, M. (2004). Application of high-resolution optical satellite imagery for post-earthquake damage assessment: The 2003 boumerdes (algeria) and bam (iran) earthquakes. Research Progress and Accomplishments 2003-2004, Buffalo: MCEER.
2. AFAD (2023). PRESS BULLETIN-36 about the Earthquake in Kahramanmaraş.
3. Alexander, D. (1991). Information technology in real-time for monitoring and managing natural disasters. Progress in Physical Geography, 15(3), 238-260.
4. Chen, K. H., Bürgmann, R., Nadeau, R. M. (2013). Do earthquakes talk to each other? Triggering and interaction of repeating sequences at Parkfield. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 118(1), 165-182.
5. Earth Observatory of Singapore – Remote Sensing Lab (2023).
6. Elnashai, A. S., Di Sarno, L. (2015). Fundamentals of earthquake engineering: from source to fragility. John Wiley & Sons.
7. Erden, T., Karaman, H. (2012). Analysis of earthquake parameters to generate hazard maps by integrating AHP and GIS for Küçükçekmece region. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12(2), 475-483.
8. Fan, Y., Wen, Q., Wang, W., Wang, P., Li, L., Zhang, P. (2017). Quantifying disaster physical damage using remote sensing data—A technical work flow and case study of the 2014 Ludian earthquake in China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 8, 471-488.

9. Hashemi, M., Alesheikh, A. A. (2011). A GIS-based earthquake damage assessment and settlement methodology. Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 31(11), 1607-1617.
10. Jena, R., Pradhan, B., Beydoun, G. (2020). Earthquake vulnerability assessment in Northern Sumatra province by using a multi-criteria decision-making model. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 46, 101518.
11. Konukcu, B. E., Karaman, H., Şahin, (2016). M. Determination of Road Functionality for Küçükçekmece District Following a Scenario Earthquake for Istanbul. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 3(1), 29-43.
12. Laituri, M., Kodrich, K. (2008). On line disaster response community: People as sensors of high magnitude disasters using internet GIS. Sensors, 8(5), 3037-3055.
13. Lu, L., Wang, Z. J., Song, M. L., Arai, K. (2015). Stability analysis of slopes with ground water during earthquakes. Engineering Geology, 193, 288-296.
14. Malczewski, J., Liu, X. (2014). Local ordered weighted averaging in GIS-based multicriteria analysis. Annals of GIS, 20(2), 117-129.
15. Menderes, A., Erener, A., Sarp, G. (2015). Automatic detection of damaged buildings after earthquake hazard by using remote sensing and information technologies. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 15, 257-262.
16. Michael Cleveland, K., Ammon, C. J. (2013). Precise relative earthquake location using surface waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 118(6), 2893-2904.
17. Mihiretie, A. (2022). Assessment of Malaria Risk Using GIS and Multi Criteria: The Case Study of East Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics (IJEGEO), 9(1), 74-78. doi.org/10.30897/ijegeo.781219
18. Nwe, Z. Z., Tun, K. T. (2016). Seismic hazard Analysis using AHP-GIS. Int. J. Res. Chem. Metallurg. Civ. Eng, 3, 1442-1450.
19. QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System (version 3.18). Open Source Geospatial Foundation; 2021. https://qgis.org/.
20. Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176.
21. Safi, O., Atik, M. E. (2023). Analyzing optimal routes to safe areas using OpenStreetMap and very high-resolution remote sensing imagery. Intercontinental Geoinformation Days, 6, 117-120.
22. Şahin, M. (2021). A comprehensive analysis of weighting and multicriteria methods in the context of sustainable energy. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 18(6), 1591-1616.
23. 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 (IJEGEO), 8(4), 572-580. doi.org/10.30897/ijegeo.1026107
24. Sha’ameri, A. Z., Aris, W. W., Sadiah, S., Musa, T. A. (2021). GPS Derived Seismic Signals for Far Field Earthquake Epicenter Location Estimation: Manuscript Received: 19 Dec 2020, Accepted: 23 Dec 2020, Published: 15 June 2021. Journal of Engineering Technology and Applied Physics, 3(1), 7-12.
25. Shadmaan, M. S., Popy, S. (2023). An assessment of earthquake vulnerability by multi-criteria decision-making method. Geohazard Mechanics, 1(1), 94-102.
26. Shadmaan, S., Islam, A. I. (2021). Estimation of earthquake vulnerability by using analytical hierarchy process. Natural Hazards Research, 1(4), 153-160.
27. Sleeman, J. M. (2005). Disease risk assessment in African great apes using geographic information systems. EcoHealth, 2(3), 222-227.
28. Stupazzini, M., Infantino, M., Allmann, A., Paolucci, R. (2021). Physics‐based probabilistic seismic hazard and loss assessment in large urban areas: A simplified application to Istanbul. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 50(1), 99-115.
29. Swetapadma, A., Yadav, A. (2015). All shunt fault location including cross-country and evolving faults in transmission lines without fault type classification. Electric Power Systems Research, 123, 1-12.
30. Vaghela, B. N., Parmar, M. G., Solanki, H. A., Kansara, B. B., et al. (2018). Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Approach for Mangrove Health Assessment using Geo-informatics Technology. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics (IJEGEO), 5(2), 114-131, doi.org/10.30897 /ijegeo.412511
31. Van Westen, C. J. (2013). Remote sensing and GIS for natural hazards assessment and disaster risk management. Treatise on geomorphology, 3(15), 259-298.
32. Yavasoglu, F., Ozden, C. V. (2017). Using geographic information systems (GIS) BASED analytic hierarchy process (AHP) earthquake damage risk analysis: Kadikoy case. TÜBAV J Sci, 10, 28-38.
33. Yilmaz, N., Yucemen, M. S. (2011). Spatial sensitivity of seismic hazard results to different background seismic activity and temporal earthquake occurrence models. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(7), 1027-1039.
34. Yu, S., Bo, J., Vandeginste, V., Mathews, J. P. (2022). Deformation-related coalification: Significance for deformation within shallow crust. International Journal of Coal Geology, 256, 103999.
35. Zhang, Y., Romanelli, F., Vaccari, F., Peresan, A., Jiang, C., Wu, Z., ... Panza, G. F. (2021). Seismic hazard maps based on Neo-deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment for China Seismic Experimental Site and adjacent areas. Engineering Geology, 291, 106208.