A comparative assessment of flood susceptibility modeling using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis and Machine Learning Methods

被引:404
|
作者
Khosravi, Khabat [1 ]
Shahabi, Himan [2 ]
Binh Thai Pham [3 ]
Adamowski, Jan [4 ]
Shirzadi, Ataollah [5 ]
Pradhan, Biswajeet [6 ,7 ]
Dou, Jie [8 ]
Ly, Hai-Bang [9 ]
Grof, Gyula [10 ]
Huu Loc Ho [11 ]
Hong, Haoyuan [12 ]
Chapi, Kamran [5 ]
Prakash, Indra [13 ]
机构
[1] Sari Agr Sci & Nat Resources Univ, Dept Watershed Management Engn, Sari, Iran
[2] Univ Kurdistan, Fac Nat Resources, Dept Geomorphol, Sanandaj, Iran
[3] Duy Tan Univ, Inst Res & Dev, Da Nang 550000, Vietnam
[4] McGill Univ, Dept Bioresource Engn, Ste Anne De Bellevue, PQ, Canada
[5] Univ Kurdistan, Dept Rangeland & Watershed Management, Fac Nat Res, Sanandaj, Iran
[6] Univ Technol Sydney, Fac Engn & IT, CAMGIS, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
[7] Sejong Univ, Dept Energy & Mineral Resources Engn, 209 NeungdongroGwangjin Gu, Seoul 05006, South Korea
[8] PWRI, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
[9] Univ Transport Technol, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
[10] Budapest Univ Technol & Econ, Dept Energy Engn, Budapest, Hungary
[11] Nguyen Tat Thanh Univ, NTT Hitech Inst, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
[12] Nanjing Normal Univ, Minist Educ, Key Lab Virtual Geog Environm, Nanjing 210023, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[13] Govt Gujarat, Dept Sci & Technol, BISAG, Gandhinagar, India
关键词
Flood susceptibility; Machine Learning; Multi-Criteria Decision-Making; GIS; China; ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE APPROACH; DATA MINING TECHNIQUES; WEIGHTS-OF-EVIDENCE; NAIVE BAYES TREE; FREQUENCY RATIO; RIVER-BASIN; ENSEMBLE; FOREST; COUNTY; VIKOR;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.073
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Floods around the world are having devastating effects on human life and property. In this paper, three Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) analysis techniques (VIKOR, TOPSIS and SAW), along with two machine learning methods (NBT and NB), were tested for their ability to model flood susceptibility in one of China's most flood-prone areas, the Ningdu Catchment. Twelve flood conditioning factors were used as input parameters: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), lithology, land use, distance from river, curvature, altitude, Stream Transport Index (STI), Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), Stream Power Index (SPI), soil type, slope and rainfall. The predictive capacity of the models was evaluated and validated using the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC). While all models showed a strong flood prediction capability (AUC > 0.95), the NBT model performed best (AUC = 0.98), suggesting that, among the models studied, the NBT model is a promising tool for the assessment of flood-prone areas and can allow for proper planning and management of flood hazards.
引用
收藏
页码:311 / 323
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Multi-criteria decision analysis in adaptation decision-making: a flood case study in Finland
    Porthin, Markus
    Rosqvist, Tony
    Perrels, Adriaan
    Molarius, Riitta
    [J]. REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE, 2013, 13 (06) : 1171 - 1180
  • [32] Evaluating Flood Susceptibility in the Brahmaputra River Basin: An Insight into Asia's Eastern Himalayan Floodplains Using Machine Learning and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
    Jatan Debnath
    Dhrubajyoti Sahariah
    Meghna Mazumdar
    Durlov Lahon
    Gowhar Meraj
    Shizuka Hashimoto
    Pankaj Kumar
    Suraj Kumar Singh
    Shruti Kanga
    Kesar Chand
    Anup Saikia
    [J]. Earth Systems and Environment, 2023, 7 : 733 - 760
  • [33] Assessing gully erosion susceptibility using topographic derived attributes, multi-criteria decision-making, and machine learning classifiers
    Al-Bawi, Ahmed J.
    Al-Abadi, Alaa M.
    Pradhan, Biswajeet
    Alamri, Abdullah M.
    [J]. GEOMATICS NATURAL HAZARDS & RISK, 2021, 12 (01) : 3035 - 3062
  • [34] Flood risk assessment using deep learning integrated with multi-criteria decision analysis
    Pham, Binh Thai
    Luu, Chinh
    Dao, Dong Van
    Phong, Tran Van
    Nguyen, Huu Duy
    Le, Hiep Van
    von Meding, Jason
    Prakash, Indra
    [J]. KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, 2021, 219
  • [35] When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods
    Saaty, Thomas L.
    Ergu, Daji
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & DECISION MAKING, 2015, 14 (06) : 1171 - 1187
  • [36] Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
    Encheva, Sylvia
    [J]. MICBE '09: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 10TH WSEAS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTERS IN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, 2009, : 192 - +
  • [37] Consensus among Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods: Using methods as a voter
    Hocaoglu, M. Fatih
    Tosun, Emre
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE OF GAZI UNIVERSITY, 2024, 40 (01): : 103 - 120
  • [38] Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study
    Ben-Arieh, D
    [J]. INTERFACES, 2002, 32 (02) : 81 - 83
  • [39] Multi-Criteria Decision Making for the Assessment of Coastal Flood Vulnerability
    Boulomytis, V. T. G.
    Zuffo, A. C.
    Gireli, T. Z.
    [J]. WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS 2015: FLOODS, DROUGHTS, AND ECOSYSTEMS, 2015, : 1248 - 1255
  • [40] Flood vulnerability assessment using an integrated approach of multi-criteria decision-making model and geospatial techniques
    K. S. Vignesh
    I. Anandakumar
    Rajeev Ranjan
    Debashree Borah
    [J]. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2021, 7 : 767 - 781