http://bpmsg.

com

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial

3.0 Singapore License.
(You need to give credit to the author)
To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/sg/
or send a letter to Creative Commons,
171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Author: Klaus D. Goepel

http://bpmsg.com
Revisions
Date Comment
3/5/2012 1st draft based on AHPcalc vers 27.8.11 (single input);
allows input from max. 7 participants

11.12.2012 Algorithm of Power Method to solve Eigenvalue was modified

released (new sheet 8x8) resulting in much higher accuracy. By
default 12 iterations
08.02.2013
released final tests
2/19/2013 corrected formatting problem of weights in summary sheet
5/7/2013 Introduced weights for individual participants (weighted
geometric mean) in sheet multInp
Extend to 20 participants
12/24/2013 For the 3 most inconsistent judgments the ideal judgment
resulting in lowest inconsistency is displayed
5/9/2014 Change of check for convergence of power method
7/26/2014 corrected wrong ref in multInp (Matrix13)
4/9/2015 changed name of consol. Matrix from MatrixC to m_p0
CHOOSE in Summary sheet now p_sel+1 and m_p0 included
(IF cond removed)
changed the min of 3 to 2 criteria
6/7/2015 correction for 2 criteria: sheet 10x10 Cell M41 limit to 12
CGI in summary sheet to "n/a" for n=2, text (2 - 10)
5/4/2016 Corrected display of the selected scale in the summary sheet

5/4/2017 Corrected AHP consensus indicator (H gamma max)

8/22/2018 Balanced scale replaced by generalized balanced scale
(Balanced-n), Added adaptive scale.
Power method max no of iterations increased from 12 to 20.
9/15/2018 Inconsistency matrix pi/pj limited between 1/9 and 9
Error estimate for EV
Error estimate for RGGM, Ordinal inconsistency Psi
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process (EVM multiple inputs)

K. D. Goepel Version 15.09.2018 Free web based AHP software on: http://bpmsg.com
Only input data in the light green fields and worksheets!
n= 10 Number of criteria (2 to 10) Scale: 1 AHP 1-9

N= 1 Number of Participants (1 to 20) a: 0.1 Consensus: n/a

3 9
p= 0 selected Participant (0=consol.) 2 7 Consolidated
Objective Application of the GIS based multi-criteria decision analysis and analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping

Author
Date Thresh: 1E-08 Iterations: 5 EVM check: 2.3E-09

Table Criterion Comment Weights +/-

1 TWI 13.8% 5.7%
2 Elevation 12.1% 2.7%
3 Slope 9.9% 4.1%
4 Precipitation 13.5% 5.5%
5 LULC 6.6% 3.7%
6 NDVI 5.9% 2.4%
7 Distance from river 14.1% 6.2%
8 Distance from road 5.6% 2.4%
9 Drainage density 9.3% 3.0%
10 Soil type 9.3% 3.0%

Result Eigenvalue Lambda: 10.730 MRE: 40.4%

Consistency Ratio 0.37 GCI: 0.20 Psi: #REF! CR: 5.5% MRE est 40.3%
Distance from

Distance from
Precipitation

Matrix normalized
Elevation

Drainage

Soil type
density

principal
Slope

LULC

NDVI

road
river
TWI

Eigenvector
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TWI 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 3 1 1 13.78%
Elevation 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 12.07%
Slope 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1/2 1 1 1 9.90%
Precipitation 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 13.45%
LULC 5 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/3 1 1 1/3 3 1 1 6.62%
NDVI 6 1/5 1/3 1 1/2 1 1 1/5 1 1 1 5.87%
Distance from
river 7
1 1 2 1/2 3 5 1 3 1 1 14.08%
Distance from
road 8
1/3 1/3 1 1/3 1/3 1 1/3 1 1 1 5.59%
Drainage
density 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9.32%
Soil type
10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9.32%

by K. Goepel 684072341.xlsx-Summary
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 1
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM +/-

1 TWI 13.7% 4.5%
2 Elevation 12.0% 2.5%
3 Slope 9.9% 3.8%
4 Precipitation 13.3% 4.4%
5 LULC 6.6% 2.9%
6 NDVI 5.9% 2.6%
7 Distance from river 14.0% 5.6%
8 Distance from road 5.7% 2.5%
9 Drainage density 9.4%
10 Soil type 9.4% 3.3%

Participant 2 1 a: 0.1 CR: 5% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation A 1 1.00 0.00
13 1 3 Slope A 1 1.00 0.00
14 1 4 Precipitation A 1 1.00 0.00
15 1 5 LULC A 3 3.00 0.00
16 1 6 NDVI A 5 5.00 0.00
17 1 7 Distance from river A 1 1.00 0.00
18 1 8 Distance from road A 3 3.00 0.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope A 1 1.00 0.00
24 2 4 Precipitation A 1 1.00 0.00
25 2 5 LULC A 2 2.00 0.00
26 2 6 NDVI A 3 3.00 0.00
27 2 7 Distance from river A 1 1.00 0.00
28 2 8 Distance from road A 3 3.00 0.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation A 1 1.00 0.00
35 3 5 LULC A 3 3.00 0.00
36 3 6 NDVI A 1 1.00 0.00
37 3 7 Distance from river B 2 0.50 0.00
38 3 8 Distance from road A 1 1.00 0.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC A 3 3.00 0.00
46 4 6 NDVI A 2 2.00 0.00
47 4 7 Distance from river A 2 2.00 0.00
48 4 8 Distance from road A 3 3.00 0.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI A 1 1.00 0.00
57 5 7 Distance from river B 3 0.33 0.00
58 5 8 Distance from road A 3 3.00 0.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river B 5 0.20 0.00
68 6 8 Distance from road A 1 1.00 0.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road A 3 3.00 0.00
0 28
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In1
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 2
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 13.7%
2 Elevation 12.0%
3 Slope 9.9%
4 Precipitation 13.3%
5 LULC 6.6%
6 NDVI 5.9%
7 Distance from river 14.0%
8 Distance from road 5.7%
9 Drainage density 9.4%
10 Soil type 9.4%

Participant 1 1 a: 0.1 CR: 5% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation A 1 1.00
13 1 3 Slope A 1 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation A 1 1.00
15 1 5 LULC A 3 3.00
16 1 6 NDVI A 5 5.00
17 1 7 Distance from river A 1 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road A 3 3.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope A 1 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation A 1 1.00
25 2 5 LULC A 2 2.00
26 2 6 NDVI A 3 3.00
27 2 7 Distance from river A 1 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road A 3 3.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation A 1 1.00
35 3 5 LULC A 3 3.00
36 3 6 NDVI A 1 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river B 2 0.50
38 3 8 Distance from road A 1 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC A 3 3.00
46 4 6 NDVI A 2 2.00
47 4 7 Distance from river A 2 2.00
48 4 8 Distance from road A 3 3.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI A 1 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river B 3 0.33
58 5 8 Distance from road A 3 3.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river B 5 0.20
68 6 8 Distance from road A 1 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road A 3 3.00
0 28
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In2
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 3
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 3 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In3
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 4
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 4 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In4
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 5
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 5 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In5
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 6
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 6 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In6
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 7
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 7 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1.00

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In7
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 8
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 8 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In8
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 9
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 9 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In9
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 10
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 10 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In10
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 11
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 11 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In11
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 12
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 12 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In12
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 13
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 13 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In13
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 14
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 14 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In14
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 15
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 15 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In15
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 16
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 16 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In16
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 17
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 17 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In17
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 18
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 18 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In18
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 19
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 19 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In19
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
AHP Analytic Hierarchy
Application Process
of the GIS based multi-criteria decisionn= 10
analysis and analytical Input 20
Objective: hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of
each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9 as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.

n Criteria Comment RGMM

1 TWI 10.0%
2 Elevation 10.0%
3 Slope 10.0%
4 Precipitation 10.0%
5 LULC 10.0%
6 NDVI 10.0%
7 Distance from river 10.0%
8 Distance from road 10.0%
9 Drainage density 10.0%
10 Soil type 10.0%

Participant 20 1 a: 0.1 CR: 0% 1

Name Weight Date Consistency Ratio
Criteria more important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 TWI Elevation 1.00
13 1 3 Slope 1.00
14 1 4 Precipitation 1.00
15 1 5 LULC 1.00
16 1 6 NDVI 1.00
17 1 7 Distance from river 1.00
18 1 8 Distance from road 1.00
23 2 3 Elevation Slope 1.00
24 2 4 Precipitation 1.00
25 2 5 LULC 1.00
26 2 6 NDVI 1.00
27 2 7 Distance from river 1.00
28 2 8 Distance from road 1.00
34 3 4 Slope Precipitation 1.00
35 3 5 LULC 1.00
36 3 6 NDVI 1.00
37 3 7 Distance from river 1.00
38 3 8 Distance from road 1.00
45 4 5 Precipitation LULC 1.00
46 4 6 NDVI 1.00
47 4 7 Distance from river 1.00
48 4 8 Distance from road 1.00
56 5 6 LULC NDVI 1.00
57 5 7 Distance from river 1.00
58 5 8 Distance from road 1.00
67 6 7 NDVI Distance from river 1.00
68 6 8 Distance from road 1.00
78 7 8 Distance from river Distance from road 1.00
0 0
of
importanc
Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over
5 Strong Importance another
Very strong One element is favored very strongly over another, it dominance
7 is demonstrated in practice
importance
The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest
9 Extreme importance possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

684072341.xlsx-In20
http://bpmsg.com AHP 08/10/2023
Multiple Input Sheet
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
bpmsg.com Multiple Input Summary Sheet

1 = k number of participants
Consolidated = Weighted geometric mean off participants 10 = n number of criteria

C Consolidated 1 Participant 2 1 12/30/1899

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 3 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 3 1 1
2 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1
3 1 1 1 3 1 0.5 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1/2 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1
5 0.3333 0.5 0.3333 0.3333 1 0.3333 3 1 1 5 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/3 1 1 1/3 3 1 1
6 0.2 0.3333 1 0.5 1 0.2 1 1 1 6 1/5 1/3 1 1/2 1 1 1/5 1 1 1
7 1 1 2 0.5 3 5 3 1 1 7 1 1 2 1/2 3 5 1 3 1 1
8 0.3333 0.3333 1 0.3333 0.3333 1 0.3333 1 1 8 1/3 1/3 1 1/3 1/3 1 1/3 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 Participant 1 1 12/30/1899 3 Participant 3 1 12/30/1899

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1/2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/3 1 1 1/3 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1/5 1/3 1 1/2 1 1 1/5 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 2 1/2 3 5 1 3 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1/3 1/3 1 1/3 1/3 1 1/3 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 Participant 4 1 12/30/1899 5 Participant 5 1 12/30/1899

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6 Participant 6 1 12/30/1899 7 Participant 7 1 12/30/1899

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8 Participant 8 1 12/30/1899 9 Participant 9 1 12/30/1899

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10 Participant 10 1 12/30/1899 11 Participant 11 1 12/30/1899

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

23 of 24 684072341.xlsx-multInp
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process (10x10 Matrix) 10
Power Method (Dominant Eigenvalue)
Iterations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 20
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.80 10.50
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 9.20
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 7.54
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 10.25
5 0.33 0.50 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 5.04
6 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 4.47
7 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.85 10.73
8 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 4.26
9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.10
10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.10
Sum (col) 7.86667 8.16667 10.3333 7.66667 18.3333 21 8.36667 20 10 10 Scaling
0.97 0.98
0.81 0.86
0.62 0.70
0.86 0.96
0.48 0.47
0.39 0.42
1.00 1.00
0.36 0.40
0.54 0.66
0.54 0.66
6.58 7.10
Normalization
0.13 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.1479 0.1378253
0.13 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.1232 0.1207241
0.13 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.0945 0.098975
0.13 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.10 0.24 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.1314 0.1345457
0.04 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.0726 0.066177
0.03 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.0594 0.0586563
0.13 0.12 0.19 0.07 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.1520 0.1407799
0.04 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.0548 0.0559167
0.13 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.0821 0.0932
0.13 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.0821 0.0932
Eigenvalue: 10.729619
Check 2.3E-09 err: 1.0E-08 1.0561E-29
10.7296 Iterations: 5.0E+00 1.295E-30
10.7296 check: 2.279E-09 0
10.7296 1.1717E-30
I*I 10.7296 4.8148E-31
10.7296 1.7018E-30
10.7296 1.2523E-31
10.7296 1.7018E-30
10.7296 7.7037E-32
10.7296 2.0037E-30
10.7296 2.0037E-30

-9.7296 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 -9.7296 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 Co
1.00 1.00 -9.7296 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00
nv
A-I*I 1.00 1.00 1.00 -9.73 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00
0.33 0.50 0.33 0.33 -9.73 1.00 0.33 3.00 1.00 1.00
er
0.20 0.33 1.00 0.50 1.00 -9.73 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 ge
1.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 5.00 -9.73 3.00 1.00 1.00 nc
0.33 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.33 -9.7296 1.00 1.00 e
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -9.7296 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -9.7296 1E-05

(A-I*I)x -2E-13 -2E-13 -2E-13 -2E-13 -2E-13 -2E-13 -2E-13 -2E-13 -2E-13 -2E-13 1E-12

1
Itera
tions