Seismic hazard assessment in active tectonic basins using a AHP-LR model: The case of Tokat (North Anatolian Fault Zone, Türkiye)

Öz

Tokat Province, situated along the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ), represents an active tectonic region that has historically been subjected to destructive earthquakes. In this study, the seismic hazard potential of Tokat Province was spatially modeled by integrating the expert-based Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the data-driven Logistic Regression (LR) methods. Eleven distinct conditioning parameters, including lithology, distance to faults, soil liquefaction, Vs30, slope, and settlement development, were utilized in the analysis. To mitigate overfitting in the LR model, the number of parameters was statistically reduced to seven key factors. The model training was executed using data derived from the very high risk zones identified by the AHP method. The analysis yielded an Area Under the Curve (AUC) value of 0.952 for the LR model, indicating excellent predictive performance. While the AHP model classified 30.5% of the province as "Very Low Risk," the LR model expanded the risk zones, specifically categorizing the Erbaa, Niksar, and Tokat basins within the high risk class. Field observations conducted across the province confirmed that the identified surface ruptures correspond precisely with the high-risk predictions of the LR model. The resulting hybrid model provides a reliable framework for regional disaster management and urban planning strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Seismic Hazard
• Analytic Hierarchy Process
• Logistic Regression
• Hybrid Model
• Tokat.

Etik Beyan

Ethics Committee Approval: Ethics Committee Approval is not required for this study.

Teşekkür

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Boğaziçi University Kandilli Observatory for providing the earthquake data used in this study for Tokat Province.

Aktif tektonik havzalarda AHP-LR modeli kullanılarak sismik tehlike değerlendirmesi: Tokat örneği (Kuzey Anadolu Fay Zonu, Türkiye)

Öz

The province of Tokat, situated along the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ), is an active tectonic region that has been subject to destructive earthquakes throughout history. In this study, the seismic hazard potential of Tokat Province has been spatially modelled by integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), based on expert opinion, and data-driven Logistic Regression (LR) methods. The study utilized 11 different parameters, including lithology, fault distance, soil liquefaction, Vs30, slope, and settlement development. To prevent overfitting in the LR model, the number of parameters was statistically reduced to seven key factors. The model was trained using data from areas identified as very high hazard via the AHP. The analysis revealed that the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the LR model was calculated as 0.952, a value that demonstrates the model’s predictive success. Whilst the AHP model classified 30.5% of the province as very low risk, the LR model expanded the hazardous areas, classifying the Erbaa, Niksar and Tokat basins in particular as High Risk. Surface fractures identified during field observations across the province fully correspond with the LR model’s high-risk predictions. The resulting model provides a reliable basis for regional disaster management and urban planning strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sismik Tehlike
• Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci
• Lojistik Regresyon
• Hibrit Model
• Tokat.

Etik Beyan

Etik Kurul Onayı: Bu çalışma için Etik Kurul Onayı gerekmemektedir.

Teşekkür

Teşekkür Yazarlar, bu çalışmada Tokat ili için kullanılan deprem verilerini sağlayan Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Kandilli Gözlemevi'ne teşekkür ederler.

Kaynakça

1. AFAD (2024). Deprem kataloğu. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/event-catalog
2. Akgül, A., & Akın, M. (2023). Kayseri il merkezi için Vs30 kayma dalgası hızı haritalarının hazırlanması [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi.
3. Akın, M., Kramer, S. L., & Topal, T. (2010). Comparison of measured and estimated shear wave velocities in a seismically active area (Erbaa, Turkey). Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics.
4. Aktaş, C., & Erkuş, O. (2009). Investigation of fog forecasting of Eskişehir using logistic regression analysis. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(16), 47–61.
5. Alizadeh M., Mazlan H., Esmaeil A., Himan S., Mohammad R. K., Amin B. P., Biswajeet P., Hassan Z. (2018). Multi- criteria decision making (MCDM) model for seismic vulnerability assessment (SVA) of urban residential buildings. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7 (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7110444.
6. Alkan, H., Toker, M., & Akkaya, İ. (2023). Van Gölü havzası ve civarının depremselliğine genel bir bakış. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28(1), 317-333. https://doi.org/10.53433/yyufbed.1138320
7. Alpaslan, N. (2013). Zemin sıvılaşması ve mekanizması. Batman Üniversitesi Yaşam Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 67-89.
8. Ambraseys, N.N. (1970). Some characteristic features of the Anatolian fault zone. Tectonophysics, 9, 143-165.

9. Ansal, A., Kurtuluş, A., & Tönük, G. (2010). Seismic microzonation and earthquake damage scenarios for urban areas. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30(11), 1319-1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.06.004
10. Ardos, M. (1995) Türkiye Ovalarının Jeomorfolojisi. Cilt:1 2. Baskı Çantay Kitabevi.
11. Arnold, C. (2006). Risk Management Series: Designing for Earthquakes. FEMA. Oakland, Kaliforniya.
12. Bahadori, H., Hasheminezhad, A., & Karimi, A. (2017). Development of an integrated model for seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings: Application to Mahabad City, Iran. Journal of Building Engineering, 12, 118-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.05.014 Barka, A. (1996) Slip distribution along the North Anatolian fault associated with the large earthquakes of the period 1939 to 1967. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86(5), 1238-1254. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0860051238
13. Barka, A.A. (1992), The north Anatolian fault zone. In Annales tectonicae. 6, 164-195.
14. Barka, A., Akyüz, H. S., Cohen, H. A., & Watchorn, F. (2000). Tectonic evolution of the Niksar and Tasova–Erbaa pull- apart basins, North Anatolian Fault Zone: their significance for the motion of the Anatolian block. Tectonophysics, 322(3-4), 243-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(00)00099-8
15. Bulut, A. (2023). Bireylerin afet okuryazarlığı düzeylerini etkileyen faktörlerin sıralı lojistik regresyon analizi ile incelenmesi. Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 6(3), 691-709. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1297045
16. Cankar, S. (2014). Kazova'da arazi bozulmasına hassas alanların belirlenmesi ve haritalanması [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi.
17. Canpolat, F. A., & Bulucu, Y. (2024). Kayseri ilindeki deprem tehlikesinin sezgisel ve istatistiksel modeller kullanılarak karşılaştırmalı analizi. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, 86, 143–159. https://doi.org/10.17211/tcd.1556195
18. Çatkın, Ş & Toprak, A. (2025). Integrated seismic risk assessment using multi-criteria decision making, statistical, and machine learning approaches: a case study of Denizli, Türkiye. Natural Hazards, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-025-07674-6
19. Demir, M., & Altaş, N. T. (2024). Kars kentinde deprem hasar risk potansiyeli taşıyan alanların CBS tabanlı AHP analizlerine dayalı olarak belirlenmesi.Geomatik,9(1), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.1375650
20. Emre, Ö., Duman, T. Y., Özalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, Ş., & Şaroğlu, F. (2013). Açıklamalı Türkiye Diri Fay Haritası. Ölçek 1:1.250.000. Ankara, Türkiye: Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, Özel Yayın Serisi-30. Türkiye. ISBN: 978-605-5310-56-1
21. Erinç, S. (2000). Jeomorfoloji-I. Der Yayınları.
22. Eyidoğan, H., Güçlü, U., Utku, Z., & Değirmenci, E. (1991). Türkiye büyük depremleri makro-sismik rehberi (1900- 1988). İTÜ MF Jeofizik Mühendisliği Bölümü Yayınları, 200.
23. Harff, J., Meschede, M., Petersen, S., & Thiede, J. (Eds.). (2016). Encyclopedia of marine geosciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6238-1
24. Hawker, L., Uhe, P., Paulo, L., Sosa, J., Savage, J., Sampson, C., & Neal, J. (2022). A 30 m global map of elevation with forests and buildings removed. Environmental Research Letters,17(2), 024016. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/ac4d4f
25. HeW,ChenG,ZhaoJ,LinY,QinB,YaoW,CaoQ(2023). Landslide susceptibility evaluation of machine learning based on information volume and frequency ratio: a case study of Weixin County, China. Sensors 23(5):2549. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052549
26. Hu, J., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Cao, J., Wang, Q., Zhao, L., Zhang, H., Xu, B. & Chen, G. (2018). Risk assessment of seismic hazards in hydraulic fracturing areas based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and AHP method (FAHP): A case analysis of Shangluo area in Yibin City, Sichuan Province, China. Journal of Petroleum Science and Hubert‐Ferrari, A., Armijo, R., King, G., Meyer, B., & Barka, A. (2002). Morphology, displacement, and slip rates along the North Anatolian Fault, Turkey. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 107(B10), ETG-9.
27. Işık, E., Karasin, İ. B., & Ulu, A. E. (2020). Eğimli Zeminlerde İnşa Edilen Betonarme Binaların Deprem Davranışlarının İncelenmesi. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (20), 162- 170. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.757763
28. JRC. (2018). GHS-BUILT-H R2022A-GHS building height, derived from AW3D30, SRTM30, and Sentinel2 composite (2018)- OBSOLETE RELEASE. https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset/ce7c0310-9d5 e- 4aeb-b99e-4755f6062557
29. Kalman Šipoš, T., Brandis, A., Bohinc, U., & Ristić, U. (2025). Determining Critical Ground Motion Parameters for Damage Prediction in Reinforced Concrete Frame Existing Buildings. Applied Sciences (2076-3417), 15(5).
30. Kanık, E. A., & Erden, S. (2003). Tanı testlerinin değerlendirilmesinde ROC (Receive Operating Characteristics) eğrisinin kullanımı. Mersin Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 3, 260-264.
31. Kiper, P. (2001). Doğal Afet Planlama İlişkisi. Planlama Dergisi, 3, 4-16.
32. Li, S., & Shen, L. (2024). Seismic optimization design and application of civil engineering structures integrated with building robot system technology. HighTech Innovation Journal, 5(4), 1118–1134. https://doi.org/10.28991/HIJ- 2024-05-04-017
33. Liberatore, M. J. & Nydick, R. L. (1990), “An Analytic Hierarchy Approach for Evaluating Product Formulations”, Chapter 7, Computer Aided Formulation: A Manual for Implementation, VCH Publishing Company, New York,
34. Marangoz, M., & İzci, Ç. (2023). Doğal afetlerin ekonomik, sosyal ve çevresel etkilerinin 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş merkezli depremler bağlamında girişimciler açısından değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 24(52), 1-30.
35. Meunier, P., Hovius, N., & Haines, AJ. (2007). Regional patterns of earthquake‐triggered landslides and their relation to ground motion. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(20). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031337
36. Mhaske, S. Y., & Choudhury, D. (2010). GIS-based soil liquefaction susceptibility map of Mumbai city for earthquake events. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 70(3), 216-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2010.01.001
37. Nazmfar, H. (2019). An integrated approach of the analytic network process and fuzzy model mapping of evaluation of urban vulnerability against earthquake. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk.
38. Ocak, F. & Bahadır, M. (2022). CBS teknikleri kullanılarak deprem duyarlılık analizi için Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi: Samsun Ladik Gölü Havzası örneği, Türkiye. Kesit Akademi Dergisi, 8 (33), 322-348.
39. Ochoa, L. H., Niño, L. F., Vargas, C. A. (2018). Fast estimation of earthquake epicenter distance using a single seismological station with machine learning techniques. Dyna, 85(204), 161-168.
40. Orhan, M., & Ateş, A. (2011). Koni Penetrasyon Testi (CPT) Verileri ile Zeminlerin Sıvılaşma Potansiyelinin Manisa- Saruhanlı Örneği ile Araştırılması. Politeknik Dergisi, 14(1), 15-23.
41. Özbek, A. (2017). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve excel ile problem çözümü. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 197.
42. Özkazanç, S. (2015, 14-16 Ekim). Sosyal, mekânsal ve ekonomik boyutlarıyla afetzede konutları [Sözlü bildiri]. 3. Türkiye Deprem Mühendisliği ve Sismoloji Konferansı.
43. Özmen, B., Güler, H., & Nurlu, M. (1997). Coğrafi bilgi sistemi ile deprem bölgelerinin incelenmesi. Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı Afet İşleri Fenel Mürdürlüğü.
44. Özşahin, E. (2014). Earthquake damage risk analysis in Tekirdağ province using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). International Journal of Human Sciences, 11(1), s. 861-879. http://dx.doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v11i1.2816
45. Özüpekçe S, & Deniz, Ö. (2023). Türkiye’nin depremselliği ve sosyo-ekonomik etkileri 6 şubat depremleri örneği. M. Bulut ve Z. Karacagil (Ed.) Sosyal Bilimlerde Güncel Tartışmalar (s. 544-573).
46. Pal, I., Nath, S. K., Shukla, K., Pal, D. K., Raj, A., Thingbaijam, K. K. S., & Bansal, B. K. (2008). Earthquake hazard zonation of Sikkim Himalaya using a GIS platform. Natural Hazards, 45, 333–377.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9173-7
47. Panahi, M., Rezaie, F., & Meshkani, S. A. (2014). Seismic vulnerability assessment of school buildings in Tehran city based on AHP and GIS. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 14(4), 969-979. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess- 14-969-2014
48. Pourghasemi, H. R., Pradhan, B., & Gokceoglu, C. (2012). Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Natural hazards, 63(2), 965-996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0217-2
49. Pranowo, Makrup L, Pawirodikromo W, Muntafi, Y. (2024). Comparison of structural response utilizing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design spectral ground motion. Civil Eng J 10:235–251. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-SP2024-010-012
50. Rehman, A., Sajjad, M., Song, J., Riaz, M.T., Mehmood, M.S., Ahamad, M.I. (2024). Integrated frequency ratio- analytical hierarchy and geospatial techniques-based earthquake risk assessment in mountainous cities: a case from the Northwestern Himalayas. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2024.2378285
51. Ren, T., Wang, Z., Ma, Y., Yan, J., Liu, K., & Li, H. (2024). Study of an evaluation method of earthquake-proof capacity of a community during an earthquake. Frontiers in Earth Science, 12, 1366697. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2024.1366697
52. Robertson, P. K., & Wride, C. E. (1998). Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Canadian geotechnical journal, 35(3), 442-459. https://doi.org/10.1139/t98-017
53. Rusydi, M., & Efendi, R. (2018). Earthquake hazard analysis use Vs30 data in Palu. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 979, No. 1, p. 012054). IOP Publishing. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(11), 1073- 1076.
54. Shafapourtehrany, M., Yariyan, P., Özener, H., Pradhan, B., & Shabani, F. (2022). Evaluating the application of K-mean clustering in earthquake vulnerability mapping of Istanbul, Turkey. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 79, 103154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103154
55. Siyahi, B., Çetin, K. Ö., & Bilge, H. T. (2013). Geoteknik deprem mühendisliği açısından zemin-temel-yapı etkileşimine kritik bakış. Türkiye Mühendislik Haberleri, 484, 41-50
56. Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., & Abrahamson, N. A. (1997). Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismological research letters, 68(1), 199-222. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.199
57. Sönmez, M. E. (2011). Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) Tabanlı Deprem Hasar Riski Analizi: Zeytinburnu (İstanbul) Örneği, Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, 56, 11-22.
58. Susam, T., Esmeray, A., Öztoprak, B., Yaprak, S., & Toprak, Ö. (2011). CBS ile Yeşilırmak Nehir Yatağı Tokat merkez bölümünde deprem riskinin irdelenmesi. İTÜ Dergisi/d, 5(3).
59. Sunbul, F., Karadeniz, E., Sengun, M. T., & Kocaoglu, M. (2025). Forecasting urban shifts post‐earthquake: LULC change analysis in Elazığ, Turkey using ANN and Markov models. The Geographical Journal, e70022. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.70022
60. Şaroğlu, F., Emre, O., & Kuscu, I. (1992). Active fault map of Turkey. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration.
61. Şeker, B.D. (2023). Doğal afetlerin göç üzerindeki etkiler: Depremler ve Türkiye. Göç Dergisi, 10(2), 173–187.
62. Şengör, A.M.C., (1979). The North Anatolian transform fault: its age, offset and tectonic significance. Journal of Geological Society of London, 136, 269-282.
63. Şengör, A. M. C., Görür, N. and Şaroğlu, F., (1985). Strike-slip faulting and related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study, Strike-slip deformation, basin formation, and sedimentation, Soc. Econ. Paleont. Min. Spec. Pub. 37 (in honor of J.C. Crowell), 227-264.
64. Şengör, A. M. C., Tüysüz, O., Imren, C., Sakınç, M., Eyidoğan, H.,Görür, N., Le Pichon, X & Rangin, C. (2005). The North Anatolian fault: A new look. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33(1), 37-112.
65. Şengün, M. T., Idrısheva, Z., Siler, M., & Karadeniz, E. (2018). Palu'da (Elazığ) depremsellik ve yerleşim alanı risk değerlendirmesi. Uluslararası Palu Sempozyumu.
66. Tatar, O., Gürsoy, H., Koçbulut, F., Kavak, K. Sezen, T. F., Polat, A., Akpınar, Z., & Mesci, L. O. (2006). Kuzey Anadolu Fay Zonu-1942 Erbaa-Niksar depremi yüzey kırığı: Yeni gözlemler. Atag10-Aktif Tektonik Araştırma Grubu, 10.
67. Toprak, A., & Günek, H. (2016). Flood analysis of arakonak stream basin (Solhan-Bingöl). Recent Research in Interdisciplinary Sciences, 358.
68. Toprak A, Sunkar M. (2022). Ağrı İlinde Meydana Gelen Doğal afetlerin Mekânsal ve Zamansal analizi. Coğrafya Dergisi. 44, 97-113. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2022-978387
69. Tudes, S. (2012). Correlation between geology, earthquake and urban planning. Earthquake Research and Analysis- Statistical Studies, Observations and Planning, p. 417-434
70. Triollet, R., Mccafferty, E., Alvarez Martinez, A., Bellan, E., Kennedy, P. and Al Khudhairy, D., (2018) JRC Annual Report 2018, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-00655-8. https://doi.org/10.2760/197350
71. UNISDR (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
72. USGS, (2023), U.S. Geological Survey. (2023). Earthquake lists, maps, and statistics. https://www.usgs.gov/natural- hazards/earthquake-hazards/lists-maps-and-statistics
73. Üzen, İ. (2014). 1942 ve 1943 Erbaa Depremleri. Karadeniz Araştırmaları, (40), 77-93.
74. Varnes, D. J. (1984). Landslide Hazard Zonation: A Review of Principles and Practice. UNESCO, Paris.
75. 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.
76. Xie, P., Wen, H., Ma, C., Baise, L. G., & Zhang, J. (2018). Application and comparison of logistic regression model and neural network model in earthquake-induced landslides susceptibility mapping at mountainous region, China. Open Geosciences, 10(1), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2018.1451399
77. Yavaşoğlu, F., & Özden, Ç. V. (2017). Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Tabanlı Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci Kullanılarak Deprem Hasar Riski Analizi: Kadıköy Örneği. Tübav Bilim Dergisi, 10(3), 28-38.
78. Yoloğlu, A. C., & Zorlu, F. (2024). Türkiye'de deprem riski ile ilişkili olarak bölgesel yığılma ve eşitsizlikler. Sketch: Journal of City and Regional Planning, 6(01), 78-96.
79. Yunus, A. P., Xinyu, C., Catani, F., Subramaniam, S. S., Fan, X., Jie, D., K. S. Sajinkumar, Ankita Gupta & Avtar, R. (2023). Earthquake-induced soil landslides: volume estimates and uncertainties with the existing scaling exponents. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 8151. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35088-6