AHP and TOPSIS based flood risk assessment- a case study of the Navsari City, Gujarat, India

Flooding is one of the major natural catastrophic disasters that causes massive environmental and socioeconomic destruction. The magnitude of losses due to floods has prompted researchers to focus more on robust and comprehensive modeling approaches for alleviating flood damages. Recently developed...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental monitoring and assessment 2022-07, Vol.194 (7), p.509-509, Article 509
Hauptverfasser: Pathan, Azazkhan Ibrahimkhan, Girish Agnihotri, Prasit, Said, Saif, Patel, Dhruvesh
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Flooding is one of the major natural catastrophic disasters that causes massive environmental and socioeconomic destruction. The magnitude of losses due to floods has prompted researchers to focus more on robust and comprehensive modeling approaches for alleviating flood damages. Recently developed multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods are being widely used to construct decision-making process more participatory, rational, and efficient. In this study, two statistical MCDM approaches, namely the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), have been employed to generate flood risk maps together with hazard and vulnerability maps in a GIS framework for Navsari city in Gujarat, India, to identify the vulnerable areas that are more susceptible to inundation during floods. The study area was divided into 10 sub areas (i.e., NC1 to NC10) to appraise the degree of flood hazard, vulnerability and risk intensities in terms of areal coverage and categorized under 5 intensity classes, viz., very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. A total of 14 flood indicators, seven each for hazard (i.e., elevation, slope, drainage density, distance to river, rainfall, soil, and flow accumulation) and vulnerability (i.e., population density, female population, land use, road network density, household, distance to hospital, and literacy rate) were considered for evaluating the flood risk. Flood risk coverage evaluated from the two approaches were compared with the flood extent computed from the actual flood data collected at 36 random locations. Results revealed that the TOPSIS approach estimated more precise flood risk coverage than the AHP approach, yielding high R 2 values, i.e., 0.78 to 0.95 and low RMSE values, i.e., 0.95 to 0.43, for all the 5 risk intensity classes. The sub areas identified under “very high” and “high” risk intensity classes (i.e., NC1, NC4, NC6, NC7, NC8, and NC10) call for immediate flood control measures with a view to palliate the extent of flood risk and consequential damages. The study demonstrates the potential of AHP and TOPSIS integrated with GIS towards precise identification of flood-prone areas for devising effective flood management strategies.
ISSN:0167-6369
1573-2959
DOI:10.1007/s10661-022-10111-x