Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Technology & Innovation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eti

Eigenvector spatial filtering enhancing natural hazards

vulnerability assessment in a susceptible urban environment: A
case study of Izmir earthquake in Turkey
Mohsen Ahmadi a, Mahyat Shafapourtehrany b, Haluk Özener b, Orkut
Murat Yilmaz b, Bahareh Kalantar c, Farzin Shabani d, *
a
Department of Natural Resources, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
b
Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Department of Geodesy, Bogazici University, Cengelkoy, Istanbul 34680, Turkey
c
RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project, Goal Oriented Technology Research Group, Disaster Resilience Science Team, Tokyo 103-0027,
Japan
d
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The increasing risk of earthquakes in urban areas has made it crucial to develop accurate
Geotechnical indicators vulnerability models for city infrastructure and systems. We aimed to assess and compare the
Seismic vulnerability analysis effectiveness of different models and vulnerability analysis techniques in predicting earthquake
Preparedness and resilience
vulnerability in the specific context of Izmir, Turkey. One central hypothesis in this research
Risk reduction
Machine learning
aimed to determine whether integrating Eigenvector Spatial Filtering (ESF) into both regression
models and machine learning algorithms would yield a comparable enhancement in model per­
formance. We performed earthquake vulnerability modeling (EVM) by considering (i) only
seismic-related variables (SRV) and (ii) integrating ESF by using Moran’s eigenvector maps
(MEMs). For each approach, we evaluated the predictive performance of two simple regression-
based models; generalized linear model (GLM) and generalized additive model (GAM), and two
complex machine learning ones; generalized boosting model (GBM), and random forest (RF). The
study utilized five primary indicators encompassing geotechnical, physical, structural, social, and
facilities data. The predictive performance of the models was assessed using evaluation metrics
including Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and adjusted R2. The
results indicated that the optimal candidate model consisted of five key variables: altitude,
building height, distance to safety gathering places, Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), and pop­
ulation density. We found that decision-tree-based methods performed better than regression-
based methods for both modeling schemes. RF exhibited the highest predictive performance for
the training data (RMSE = 0.59, adjusted R2 = 0.71), while GBM outperformed other models for
the test data (RMSE = 0.79, adjusted R2 = 0.78). However, incorporating ESF to the EVM analysis
revealed that regression-based methods, particularly the GLM, obtained highest improvement in
accuracy (RMSE 0.94 vs 0.76 and adjusted R2 0.56 vs 0.71 for the SRV and SRV + MEMs
modeling approach). Significant differences were observed between GLM-GBM and GLM-RF
comparisons, as well as GAM-GBM and GAM-RF comparisons. The findings of this research are
expected to be helpful for informed decision-making, targeted risk reduction, and the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fshabani@qu.edu.qa (F. Shabani).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2024.103666
Received 4 April 2024; Received in revised form 7 May 2024; Accepted 7 May 2024
Available online 10 May 2024
2352-1864/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

development of effective policies and strategies to enhance preparedness and resilience in the face
of seismic events in highly susceptible urban systems.

1. Introduction

The integration of GIS and statistical modeling has significantly improved our understanding and management of spatial phe­
nomena, facilitating comprehensive analyses and informed decision-making (Islam et al., 2022; Weng, 2010). Additionally, the
incorporation of statistical and machine learning models with GIS technology enables simulation of future scenarios and valuable
insights into spatial trends (Wang et al., 2022). Spatial statistics also plays a critical role in predicting the spatial distribution and
assessing susceptibility to various natural hazards. The integration of GIS and statistical techniques has been widely employed in
susceptibility analysis for a diverse range of natural hazards such as landslides (Abu El-Magd et al., 2021; de Oliveira et al., 2019),
floods (Shafapour Tehrany et al., 2017; Tehrany et al., 2018; Tehrany et al., 2019; Tehrany et al., 2014, 2015a; Tehrany et al., 2015b),
wildfires (Ghorbanzadeh et al., 2019; Shabani et al., 2023; Tehrany et al., 2021), earthquakes (Han et al., 2021; Shafapourtehrany
et al., 2022; Umar et al., 2014; Yariyan et al., 2020), etc. Specifically, the application of spatial statistics in assessing seismic
vulnerability in large metropolitan areas is critical due to its socioeconomic implications. This knowledge informs decision-making and
resource allocation for risk mitigation strategies, including preparedness measures, infrastructure strengthening, improved building
codes, and enhanced emergency response plans (Jena et al., 2020; Rezaie and Panahi, 2015). Robust vulnerability assessment also
facilitates the development of evidence-based policies and strategies to address long-term challenges, ultimately enhancing urban
resilience against seismic hazards.
Turkey is situated at the convergence of several tectonic plates, rendering it a seismically active region characterized by numerous
active fault lines (Gurbuz et al., 2022; Shafapourtehrany et al., 2022). Among the notable fault lines in Turkey are the North Anatolian
Fault (NAF), East Anatolian Fault (EAF), West Anatolian Fault (WAF), North Aegean Trough (NAT), and Malatya-Karliova Fault. One of
the significant seismic events in recent history was the Izmir earthquake, also known as the 2020 Izmir earthquake, which registered a
magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale. This earthquake occurred in the Aegean Sea on October 30, 2020, resulting in a tragic loss of
lives (Gurbuz et al., 2022). The earthquake resulted in the tragic loss of one hundred and seventeen lives, with 1034 individuals
sustaining injuries in Izmir, Turkey’s third-largest city, and the surrounding areas. The intricate tectonic interactions in the region
contribute to its susceptibility to earthquakes, emphasizing the urgent need for robust preparedness and mitigation measures. Spe­
cifically. the devastating impact of events like the Izmir earthquake underscores the critical need for proactive strategies aimed at
enhancing the resilience of communities and infrastructure in the face of seismic hazards. This necessitates comprehensive risk as­
sessments, effective early warning systems, and the implementation of sound engineering practices to reduce the potential conse­
quences of future seismic events.
Careful selection of appropriate predictive models is essential for accurate decision-making based on spatial data (Shabani et al.,
2016; Shabani et al., 2018). Generally, in spatial statistics the characteristics of neighborhoods significantly influence spatial phe­
nomena due to the spatial dependence property inherent in geospatial data (Chun and Griffith, 2014). Particularly, spatial autocor­
relation (SAC) significantly influences the interpretation of statistical models. Residuals, being spatially autocorrelated in geographical
space, may challenge the assumption of independence in regression models (Griffith and Peres-Neto, 2006; Legendre et al., 2002). In
response to this concern, spatial regression models have been tailored to geospatial analysis. These models can be broadly classified
into two types: spatial lag models and spatial error models, and their performance in addressing spatial statistical modeling has been
approved in the literature (Mainali et al., 2019). Further, the introduction of the eigenvector spatial filtering (ESF) method has shown
promising results in addressing SAC issues in comparison to other spatial regression models (Griffith, 2021; Wang et al., 2013). The ESF
model utilizes spatially filtered eigenvectors as proxy variables derived from a spatial weight matrix (C), which interact with covariates
to effectively address the complexities associated with SAC (Chun and Griffith, 2014). Methodologically, there are two
eigenfunction-based spatial filtering: topology-based spatial filtering (Griffith and Peres-Neto, 2006) and distance-based eigenvector
maps (Dray et al., 2006), both leverage the interplay between spatial filters and explanatory variables to enhance the accuracy and
predictive performance of statistical models.
Alongside traditional regression-based models, in recent years, machine learning algorithms, including support vector machines
(SVM (Chen et al., 2017)), artificial neural networks (ANNs (Lim et al., 2016)), and decision trees such as random forest and boosting
methods (Akay et al., 2019; Park and Bae, 2015) have emerged as high-performing tools in spatial statistics. Regression-based models
are useful for extrapolation, relying on the intrinsic assumptions of a normal error distribution and constant variance (Osborne and
Waters, 2019). On the other hand, the complexity of model fitting in machine learning approaches enables deeper discrimination in
training data, making them more suitable for interpolating procedures (Ahmadi et al., 2023). The user-friendly nature of
regression-based methods, contrasted with the complex and ’black-box’ nature of machine learning, has contributed to the popularity
of the former in spatial statistics (Huque et al., 2014). In spatial statistics, ESF has primarily been developed for spatial regression
models (Griffith and Peres-Neto, 2006) and has become more popular than machine learning for incorporating ESF. A few recent
studies have explored ESF in machine learning (Islam et al., 2022) but they have received less attention despite the diversity of these
methods.
Given the diverse range of statistical and machine learning models available for data analysis and predictive modeling, each with its
own strengths based on specific data characteristics and analysis objectives, selecting the most suitable model can pose a challenge. In
earthquake vulnerability analysis, spatial statistics have played a crucial role in assessing seismic-related risks (Alizadeh et al., 2018;

2
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Jena et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2019; Panahi et al., 2014). However, it is notable that, in many instances, SAC of earthquake incidents and
explanatory variables has been overlooked (Han et al., 2021; Yariyan et al., 2020). To advance this research field, our study takes a
novel approach to integrative earthquake vulnerability analysis. Specifically, we conducted an in-depth investigation using the
example of the Izmir earthquake. Our analysis involved two key steps: (i) a comparison of the predictive performance between
regression-based and machine learning methods, and (ii) the utilization of seismic-related variables (SRV) alone and in combination
with eigenvector spatial filtering (SRV + ESF). We created spatial eigenvectors as proxy variables of spatial dependence (see Methods)
and hypothesized that incorporating them into seismic-related vulnerability modeling would enable both regression-based and ma­
chine learning methods similarly to effectively address spatial dependence and minimize SAC.
A well-structured seismic vulnerability modeling approach can effectively predict the potential impacts of earthquakes on the built
environment by taking various vulnerability-influencing factors into account. Identifying the most significant variables that affect
earthquake vulnerability in urban areas and assessing the spatial patterns of seismic vulnerability enable the prioritization of risk
reduction initiatives and the development of more resilient urban planning strategies. In this context, the main objectives of our study
are: (a) to develop a robust seismic vulnerability model for evaluating the susceptibility of built environments to earthquake-induced
damage, (b) to identify and assess the significance of key variables influencing seismic vulnerability, (c) to understand the spatial
distribution of seismic vulnerability and pinpoint high-risk zones, and (d) to evaluate the performance of different modeling ap­
proaches in earthquake vulnerability analysis within a highly dense metropolitan area. Beyond earthquake vulnerability analysis, our
approach provides valuable insights into spatial statistics and vulnerability assessment for other natural hazards, such as landslides,
floods, and wildfires.

2. Methods

2.1. Study area

On October 30, 2020, a powerful earthquake measuring 7.0 on the moment magnitude scale struck approximately 14 km northeast
of the Greek island of Samos. Details of the earthquake, as recorded by various institutions including Turkey’s Ministry of Interior
Affairs Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI), The
United States Geological Survey (USGS), and EMSC: European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC), are presented in Table 1
(Gurbuz et al., 2022). This seismic event resulted from the rupture of the 37 km long Samos Fault, which is located about 8 km away
from the island’s northern shores and exhibits normal faulting characteristics (Ganas et al., 2020). The fault slipped approximately
1.8 m during the earthquake. The Samos Fault is situated in the eastern part of the Aegean microplate, which is highly seismically
active due to the westward movement of the Anatolian microplate and the subduction of the African Plate beneath the Eurasian plate at
the Hellenic Trench (Turkish General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MRE), accessed on December 10, 2020, from
https://www.mta.gov.tr/v3.0).
The earthquake resulted in tragic consequences in Turkey, with a reported loss of 116 lives and 1033 injuries. Additionally, two
more deaths were recorded in Samos, Greece, bringing the total number of fatalities to 118 (Turkey Ministry of Environment and
Urbanisation (MEU), accessed on December 19, 2020, from https://csb.gov.tr).
İzmir, not only being one of the most populous cities in Turkey, but also a significant economic, cultural, and touristic center,
experienced the impact of the earthquake. The city’s growing population and high immigration potential have led to an increase in the
number of buildings. İzmir is home to approximately 725,000 buildings, a considerable portion of which are low and mid-rise rein­
forced concrete structures. The damaged buildings dataset was obtained from the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality (https://www.
izmir.bel.tr/). Fig. 1 depicts the seismic activity surrounding the epicenter, including aftershocks with magnitudes greater than 4.0,
that occurred in the subsequent days. The study area and the locations of the damaged buildings are also indicated in the Fig. 1.

2.2. Seismic vulnerability analysis

2.2.1. Data preparation

As mentioned in the study area section, the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality (https://www.izmir.bel.tr/) collected data on
damaged buildings. This data was utilized in a count-based modeling framework to train the methods. Specifically, we divided the
Izmir metropolitan area into a network of 1 × 1 km grid cells and recorded the number of damaged buildings in each cell as the
response variable for our earthquake vulnerability modeling framework. We also assessed the suitability of using 0.5 × 0.5 km and 2 ×
2 km grid cells for our count-based data analysis. The former resulted in a large number of cells with zero damaged buildings, while the
latter had fewer cells but higher concentrations of damaged buildings per cell. Therefore, we focused on the 1 × 1 km grid cells and

Table 1
Characteristics of the 2020 Izmir earthquake as reported by various sources.
Source Magnitude Depth Epicenter coordinates

AFAD 6.6 16.54 km 37.8881 N 26.7770 E

KOERİ 6.9 12 km 37.9020 N 26.7942 E
USGS 7.0 12 km 37.918 N 26.790 E
EMSC 7.0 10 km 37.91 N 26.84 E

3
 M. Ahmadi et al.
4

Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Fig. 1. The study area indicating the epicenter location of the main shock and the distribution of aftershocks (Mw = 4.0) in the Aegean Sea Earthquake from October 30, 2020, to December 4, 2020 (a).
The study area showing a few examples of damaged buildings caused by the earthquake (b).
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

5
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Fig. 2. The study area’s geotechnical factors of altitude, slope, and geology; physical factors included Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), distance
from the epicenter, and distance from faults; structural factors included Land use/cover (LULC), building density, and building height density; the
social factor included population density; and facilities factors included distance from roads, hospitals, fire stations, safety gathering places,
educational places, social service centers, and historical sites.

prepared both the response variable and explanatory variables accordingly.

To perform vulnerability analysis, we required a second dataset consisting of earthquake vulnerability-related factors (Han et al.,
2020; Shafapourtehrany et al., 2022). In this study, we selected 17 such factors based on an extensive literature review, expert opinion,
and analysis of available data (Han et al., 2021; Han et al., 2019). These factors were categorized into five main indicators:
geotechnical, physical, structural, social, and facilities (Armaş et al., 2017). Geotechnical factors included altitude, slope, and geology;
physical factors included Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), distance from the epicenter, and distance from faults; structural factors
included Land use/cover (LULC), building density, and building height density; the social factor included population density; and
facilities factors included distance from roads, hospitals, fire stations, safety gathering places, educational places, social service
centers, and historical sites.
The explanatory factors were organized into raster-based spatial databases with a spatial resolution of 30 m (Fig. 2). The sources
and supporting literature for the selection of each factor are listed in Table 2. We calculated the mean value of raster maps within each
1 × 1 km grid cell using Zonal statistics analysis. For two categorical factors, namely LULC and geology, we computed the area of each
category within the grid cells and assigned the category with the highest extent to each respective cell.

2.2.2. Modeling approach

Choosing the most appropriate statistical or machine learning model for data analysis and predictive modeling can be challenging
due to the wide variety of available models, each tailored to specific data characteristics and analysis objectives. The use of both
regression-based and machine learning models in vulnerability analysis offers complementary strengths that can enhance the
robustness and accuracy of assessments. Regression-based approaches provide a transparent and interpretable framework for un­
derstanding the relationship between vulnerability and its contributing factors, while machine learning models can capture complex
interactions and non-linear relationships within the data. Furthermore, incorporating Spatial Autocorrelation (SAC) into the modeling
approach improves the ability to capture spatial structures in the analysis. In our case, the statistical analysis was conducted in five
sequential steps. First, we initially screened the non-spatial variables by assessing the variance inflation factor (VIF) and performing a
preliminary step-wise linear regression to identify influential variables (Explanatory variable screening). Second, we computed
Moran’s eigenvector maps to capture the SAC and spatial structure of the dataset, providing insights into spatial patterns and de­
pendencies. Third, models were trained using both non-spatial variables and a combination of non-spatial variables and MEMs,
incorporating spatial information into the analysis (Model training). Fourth, we evaluated the performance of the models using key
metrics such as root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and adjusted R-squared (Adj-R2). These measures helped
assess the accuracy and predictive power of the models. Fifth, based on the trained models, we generated maps depicting the predicted
susceptibility or vulnerability, providing spatially explicit information about the areas of interest (generation of predicted suscepti­
bility maps). By following this systematic approach, we aimed to ensure robust and reliable results in assessing and predicting the
susceptibility or vulnerability of the study area.
As mentioned earlier, our statistical analysis focused on the prepared dataset resulting from GIS preprocessing. However, due to a
significant number of grids without damaged buildings, the frequency density plot exhibited right-skewness. This situation can lead to
skewed residuals, primarily caused by outliers that remain in the residuals. To address this issue, we performed a log transformation on
the number of damaged buildings per plot, aiming to reduce the skewness. For seismic-related susceptibility modeling, we initially
fitted a preliminary linear regression model that included all non-spatial explanatory variables. To account for multicollinearity among
these variables, we calculated their Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and selected variables with a VIF value of less than 6 for further
analysis. Subsequently, we employed a backward-forward stepwise model selection procedure to identify the best candidate model,
which comprised the most informative variables with the highest contribution in explaining the building damage inventory. In
addition to the non-spatial variables, we incorporated spatial variables that accounted for SAC. These spatial variables were obtained
using an eigenvector spatial filtering approach. Both the non-spatial and spatial variables were considered in the subsequent
regression-based and machine learning model training procedures.
Spatial models that consider spatial covariates can generally be categorized into three types: spatial lag model (SLM), spatial error
model (SEM), and eigenvector-based spatial filtering (ESF) approach. The first two models require specific parameter estimation
methods that are not available in the general ordinary least squares (OLS) model. Typically, these models utilize maximum likelihood
estimation or Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods for parameter estimation (for more details, refer to (LeSage and
Pace, 2009)).
In contrast, the ESF approach takes into account both local and global SAC of the input data and performs parameter estimation
within the standard OLS model. This advantage led us to focus on the ESF approach in our analysis. We incorporated derived
eigenfunctions of the spatial configuration of observations into the final regression and machine learning model fitting. These
eigenfunctions, represented by eigenvalues and eigenvectors, are obtained from a connectivity matrix of a spatial weighting matrix
(SWM). The extracted eigenvectors are orthogonal and uncorrelated, maximizing the SAC measured by Moran’s coefficient. They can
be included as spatial covariates in the model fitting procedure.

6
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Fig. 2. (continued).

7
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Fig. 2. (continued).

8
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Table 2
Sources of the factors utilized in this study were obtained from various references and datasets.
Earthquake vulnerability related factors Sources Supporting Literature

Altitude https://www.usgs.gov/ (Yariyan et al., 2020)

(Shadmaan and Islam,
2021)
Slope Derived from DEM (Alamanis, 2021)
(Hu et al., 2019)
LULC Copernicus Website (Motamed et al., 2012)
https://land.copernicus.eu/ (Ganguly et al., 2019)
Geology General Directorate of Mineral Exploration and (Shafapourtehrany et al.,
Research https://www.mta.gov.tr/ 2022)
PGA Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (Jena and Pradhan, 2020)
(AFAD) https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/TDTH/main. (Bastami et al., 2022)
xhtml
Earthquake epicenter Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research (Cremen and Galasso,
Institute http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/ 2020)
(Han et al., 2021)
Faults General Directorate of Mineral Exploration and (Bessason and Bjarnason,
Research https://www.mta.gov.tr/ 2016)
(Nazmfar, 2019)
Population Izmir Metropolitan Municipality https://acikveri. (Armaş et al., 2017)
bizizmir.com/dataset/
Buildings (density and height) Izmir Metropolitan Municipality https://www. (Alizadeh et al., 2018)
izmir.bel.tr/ (Alizadeh et al., 2018)
Roads OpenStreetMap (Mokarram et al., 2020)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/
Hospitals Izmir Metropolitan Municipality https://acikveri. (Kheirizadeh Arouq et al.,
bizizmir.com/dataset/ 2020)
(Rezaie and Panahi, 2015)
Fire stations Izmir Metropolitan Municipality https://acikveri. (Alam and Haque, 2022)
bizizmir.com/dataset/ (Sarreshtehdari and
Khorasani, 2021)
Safety gathering places Izmir Metropolitan Municipality https://www. (Bernardini et al., 2017)
izmir.bel.tr/
Educational places (kindergarten, school for the disabled, etude education Izmir Metropolitan Municipality https://acikveri. (Rezaie and Panahi, 2015)
center, public education center, primary school, college, high school, bizizmir.com/dataset/ (Hancilar et al., 2014)
vocational high school, secondary school, art school and universities)
Social service centers (family solidarity center, child and youth center, Izmir Metropolitan Municipality https://acikveri. (Armaş et al., 2016)
kindergarten, nursing home, community center, orphanage) bizizmir.com/dataset/ (No et al., 2020)
Historical places (museums, ancient cities, historical places,) Izmir Metropolitan Municipality https://acikveri. (Jena et al., 2020)
bizizmir.com/dataset/

Table 3
Details of the optimal candidate model identified based on the step-wise model selection performed on the initial regression analysis. Building_h:
building height, Dis_safty: distance to safety gathering places, PGA, and Pop_density: population density.
Estimate SD t value P-value

(Intercept) -7.404 1.270 -5.831 3.58e− 10

Altitude -1.275e− 03 3.643e− 04
-3.102 8.67e− 05
Building_h 1.772e− 04 2.474e− 05
7.141 2.63e− 12
Dis_safty -3.696e− 04 8.320e− 05
-4.007 3.44e− 07
PGA 1.095e+01 1.583 6.674 1.98e− 12
Pop_density 2.032e− 05 7.634e− 06
2.561 0.00755

Residual SD: 23.68

Multiple R-squared: 0.569
Adjusted R-squared: 0.565

There are two ESF methods based on eigenfunctions: topology-based ESF and distance-based ESF, known as principal coordinates
of neighbor matrices (PCNM). In our case, considering the 1 × 1 km sampling design and the distance-based nature of predictors such
as distance to faults, we focused on the distance-based ESF method. To implement this, we first computed a pairwise Euclidean distance
matrix (D) among sampling units (D = [dij]). We utilized the ’spdep’ package to create a neighborhood list and calculate the Euclidean
distance along them. In the next step, the spatial weighting matrix (W = [wij]) was defined as a truncated distance matrix using a
distance function [(1- dij)/(max(dij))]. Finally, eigenvectors were extracted based on the mathematical diagonalization of a doubly
centered SWM according to the following procedure.

9
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Fig. 3. The spatial distribution of damaged buildings density in Izmir Metropolitan and the top 10 Moran eigenvector maps (MEMs) extracted across
the study area. The transition from grey to red colors indicates an increase in the count of damaged buildings.

10
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Fig. 4. The predictive performance of the methods for both training data (solid line) and test data (dashed line) is evaluated based on two models:
the seismic-related vulnerability (SRV) model and the seismic-related vulnerability plus eigenvector spatial filtering (SRV + MEMs) model.

11
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Fig. 5. A seismic vulnerability map was generated for four models based on non-spatial predictors and non-spatial + MEMs (Moran eigenvectors).

12
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

( ) ( )
11T 11T
Ω= I− W I−
n n
The diagonalization of Ω involves the n × n identity matrix (I), the n × 1 vector of ones (1), and the number of areal units (n). The
transpose operator (T) is denoted as T. Further details can be found in (Dray et al., 2006). By diagonalizing Ω, we obtain eigenfunctions
consisting of n eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors, which capture latent SAC at different scales. The eigenvalues represent
Moran’s I coefficients of SAC, while the magnitude of the orthogonal and uncorrelated eigenvectors is indicated by these eigenvalues (λ
= λ1, λ2,…, λn). Although spatial variation decomposition results in a full set of MEMs per sample unit, regression-based models can
suffer from overfitting when the number of explanatory variables is high. Therefore, it is essential to employ a procedure for reducing
the number of MEMs.
Bauman et al. (2018) recommended two powerful methods for selecting the best subset of MEMs: a forward selection approach with
a double-stopping criterion, which fits a general model and selects the best-fitted MEMs maximizing the R2 of the model to prevent
overfitting (the FWD approach), and a method that chooses MEMs based on minimizing SAC in the model residuals (the MIR
approach). In our analysis, we used the FWD approach as our focus was on accurately describing the spatial predictors rather than their
effect on model residuals (Bauman et al., 2018). The ’mem.select’ function from the R package ’adespatial’ was utilized to select the
best-fitted spatial predictors among all possible MEMs. Subsequently, our models were trained to predict seismic-related susceptibility
by incorporating the selected MEM variables as spatial predictors. Hence, we evaluated the predictive performance of four models of
GLM, GAM, GBM, and RF, using two seismic vulnerability analysis techniques, namely seismic-related vulnerability (SRV) and
Eigenvector Spatial Filter plus seismic-related vulnerability (ESF + SRV).

2.2.3. Evaluating models performance

The predictive performance of the models was assessed using evaluation metrics including Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean
Absolute Error (MAE), and adjusted R2. RMSE represents the standard deviation of the residuals, indicating the spread of these re­
siduals. Lower RMSE values indicate a better fit of the model. The measurement of the models’ RMSE is as follows:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√∑
√n
√ (xi − ̂ xi)
√
RMSE = i=1
n

where xi stands for actual and ̂

x i stands for the predicted values and n is the number of samples.
The Mean Absolute Error (MAE) calculates the prediction error by taking the mean of the absolute values of all errors. A lower MAE
indicates that the model predicts with less error and higher predictive capacity. The MAE is calculated as follows:
n
∑
xi|
|xi − ̂
i=1
MAE =
n

where xi and ̂x i denote the actual and predicted values, respectively, and n is the number of samples. Furthermore, we conducted an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) test to evaluate the performance of the models and
determine any significant differences.
Finally, we calculated the relative importance of the variables in all four models using the normalized importance weighting
approach. For the GLM and GAM, we computed the normalized coefficients of the variables. For RF and GBM, we employed a per­
mutation approach where the importance of a predictor is determined by averaging the differences in prediction accuracy or prediction
error across all trees when a given predictor is permuted.

3. Results

The results of the preliminary linear regression model, which did not include spatial predictors, showed that the categorical
variables LULC and Geology had VIF values greater than 6. As a result, we excluded these variables from subsequent analyses. We then
conducted a step-wise model selection analysis on the initial regression model to identify the best candidate model with a reduced
number of input variables. The analysis revealed that the optimal candidate model, achieving an Adj-R2 value of 0.56, comprised five
variables: altitude, building height, distance to safety gathering places, PGA, and population density. These five variables were selected
for further model refinement and comparison.
By optimizing the spatial weighting matrix and selecting the best subset of eigenvectors, we obtained 62 orthogonal MEMs, which
were ranked based on the Adj-R2 of the residual SAC. However, considering the complexity associated with including a large number
of variables in a model, we focused on the top 10 MEMs for fitting the final regression and machine learning methods and comparing
their performance. Fig. 3 illustrates the geographical distribution of these 10 extracted MEMs, which represent varying levels of spatial
relatedness, smoothness, and structure in the variability of seismic-related house damage. For instance, spatial filters one, three, and
five capture the clustering of damaged houses as indicated by the eigenvectors, and they correlate with the underlying high/low
damage clusters depicted in Fig. 3. It is worth noting that spatial filters two, four, and nine exhibit a more localized spatial structure
with smaller eigenvalues, resulting in more limited truncation distances.
The results of model fitting based on a 10-fold cross-validated replication of training data and test data are presented in Figs. 4 and

13
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

5. As expected, the inclusion of MEMs in seismic susceptibility modeling significantly improved the predictive performance of all
models. Overall, for the training data, machine learning methods exhibited higher predictive performance than regression-based
models for both the SRV and SRV + MEMs modeling schemes. The Tukey HSD test indicated a significant difference in predictive
performance between the GLM-GBM and GLM-RF comparisons for all three performance criteria. Additionally, for the R-squared
criterion, the Tukey HSD test revealed a significant difference between the GAM-GBM and GAM-RF comparisons.
Specifically, RF demonstrated the highest predictive performance on the training data, with mean RMSE values of 0.79 and 0.69,
mean MAE values of 0.52 and 0.46, and mean R-squared values of 0.71 and 0.80 for the SRV and SRV + MEMs schemes, respectively.
Conversely, GLM exhibited the lowest predictive performance for the training data, with mean RMSE values of 0.94 and 0.76, mean
MAE values of 0.72 and 0.58, and mean R-squared values of 0.56 and 0.71, for the SRV and SRV + MEMs schemes, respectively. For the
test data and across all model evaluation criteria, our analysis revealed that GBM outperformed the other models, while GLM once
again showed the lowest predictive performance. Specifically, for GBM in the SRV and SRV + MEMs schemes, we obtained an RMSE of
0.59 and 0.51, an MAE of 0.37 and 0.34, and an R-squared of 0.78 and 0.84, respectively. The relative importance of predictors
exhibited a varying pattern across the four different models (Fig. 6). Despite this variation, the results consistently indicated that
building height, PGA, MEM4, and population density held the highest relative importance among all predictors.

4. Discussion

Throughout its history, Turkey has experienced numerous seismic events, some of which have had devastating consequences, both
in terms of human lives lost and infrastructure damage. By employing advanced technology and conducting comprehensive seismic
risk assessments, Turkey and other regions prone to destructive earthquakes can better prepare themselves for the inevitable seismic
events that will occur in the future. Such assessments not only help in the development of robust building codes and infrastructure
improvements but also enable the government and local communities to formulate effective disaster response plans, ultimately saving
lives and minimizing economic losses (Jena et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2019). This reality underscores the critical importance of spatial
statistics and predicting seismic-related vulnerability assessment in this situation.
Our modeling approach identified altitude as one of the most significant variables in determining areas vulnerable to seismic

Fig. 6. The relative importance of the predictors was calculated using the normalized importance weighting approach. The variables include
Build_high (building height), PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration), Pop_dens (population density), and Dis_safty (distance to safety gathering places).

14
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

activity. Generally, topography plays a crucial role in influencing earthquake ground motions and potential structural damage
(Nguyen and Gatmiri, 2007). For example, higher altitudes often correspond with varying geological formations, slope instability, and
altered seismic wave propagation, all of which can amplify shaking intensity and exacerbate the vulnerability of buildings (Shabani
et al., 2021). However, in our study, altitude proved to be important because the highest concentration of damaged buildings was
observed within the İzmir metropolitan area, where the mean altitude is lower than that of the surrounding rugged landscapes. Our
results also highlighted a significantly positive effect of building height and population density in identifying vulnerable areas. Taller
buildings are often more vulnerable to seismic activity due to their increased mass, flexibility, and susceptibility to resonance with
long-period seismic waves (Kavyashree et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2023). Moreover, densely populated urban areas often have a higher
concentration of tall structures, further increasing the potential for significant damage during earthquakes. Consequently, under­
standing the influence of building height on seismic vulnerability is essential for informing the development of building codes and
prioritizing structural retrofitting initiatives. Additionally, population density plays a crucial role in shaping seismic vulnerability.
Highly populated urban centers face increased risks due to the potential for mass casualties, damaged infrastructure, and cascading
social and economic consequences (Jha et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2019). As a result, addressing seismic vulnerability in densely
populated areas requires a multifaceted approach that considers not only the built environment but also the capacity of local emer­
gency services, the effectiveness of evacuation routes, and community resilience initiatives.
As expected, we found that Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) has a positive influence on seismic vulnerability, underscoring the
critical role of ground motion intensity in assessing potential structural damage. PGA serves as a key indicator of the severity of
earthquake shaking and its potential impact on the built environment (Bastami et al., 2022). Higher PGA values correspond to
increased seismic forces exerted on structures, potentially leading to more significant damage during earthquakes (Akinci et al., 2010).
Consequently, understanding the spatial variability of PGA across a study area is crucial for identifying zones with heightened seismic
vulnerability. This knowledge can inform land-use planning and help prioritize retrofitting initiatives for critical infrastructure and
vulnerable buildings.
In the era of spatial statistics, the assessment of model performance has commonly focused on comparing various geostatistical,
traditional regression, and machine learning methods (for example see (Chen et al., 2019; Han et al., 2020; Islam et al., 2022). Each of
these methods has exhibited its own strengths and weaknesses, and the degree of predictive accuracy has varied significantly
depending on the specific dataset and study area. Despite its pivotal role in understanding the interdependencies between neighboring
data points, many studies in this field have neglected to incorporate SAC into their analytical frameworks. This omission can lead to
critical shortcomings in hazard assessments, as it fails to account for the inherent spatial dependencies present in natural phenomena
(Griffith and Peres-Neto, 2006). This oversight not only restricts our understanding of the spatial dynamics of natural hazards but also
hinder robust and effective hazard mitigation strategies. Recently, researchers have turned their attention to optimizing model
specifications to account for the spatial variability inherent in natural hazard modeling (Fang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019). In this
research, we introduced the earthquake vulnerability modeling to a relatively novel category of spatial predictors derived from
eigenfunction analysis. Specifically, we tailored ESF in two well-established statistical methodologies, namely regression and machine
learning to compare models’ performance and to foster more robust and effective seismic-related vulnerability analysis.
The outcomes of this study illustrate that incorporating ESF to account for SAC improves the model interpretability and predictive
accuracy of both regression and machine learning methods. This discovery aligns with prior research (Islam et al., 2022) that employed
mixed-based approaches, demonstrating that the inclusion of spatial eigenvectors derived from geographic coordinates enhances
model performance. Nevertheless, the results showed that the performance of the models differs when spatial variables are added. In
general, as anticipated, the predictive accuracy of machine learning models significantly surpassed that of regression models when
exclusively relying on non-spatial predictors. In many similar studies, machine learning models have also been reported to have higher
predictive performance compared to simple regression models (Ahmadi et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2019; Shabani et al., 2016). This is due
to the complex nature of both RF and GBM models and their decision tree approach, which involves creating a large number of
sub-models or learners from the input dataset. These models are designed to improve the prediction by harnessing the inherent
learning capabilities of the model, with the goal of maximizing the discriminatory power of the training data (Rosa, 2010). Specifically,
RF and GBM make use of the bagging and boosting algorithms associated with tree-based learners, respectively (Elith et al., 2008). In
the case of RF, the bagging algorithm, also referred to as bootstrap aggregation, allows the tree-based learner to repeatedly select
random samples from the training set with replacement and construct individual trees based on these samples (Breiman, 2001).
Subsequently, once all the trees are constructed, the predictions are averaged across them (Zhang and Ma, 2012). In contrast, boosting
algorithms such as GBM train trees sequentially. GBM places more emphasis on correcting the mistakes made in previous iterations,
thereby giving greater importance to observations that were incorrectly classified and diminishing the significance of correctly
classified observations (Hastie et al., 2009). Probably due to its boosting nature, GBM outperformed the RF model in predicting
out-of-bag data. Similar findings have been reported in other studies (Das et al., 2022). However, to draw a conclusive assessment,
further investigations with diverse input data patterns are warranted. Nonetheless, as highlighted by (Valavi et al., 2022), the
incorporation of regularization techniques in the random forest model can mitigate overfitting and enhance its out-of-bag prediction
performance.
One of the central hypotheses in this research was whether incorporating ESF into both regression models and machine learning
algorithms would result in a comparable enhancement in model performance. The findings from this study indicate significant var­
iations in model performance when ESF is employed. Specifically, in simpler regression models, the utilization of spatial variables led
to a more substantial improvement in predictive accuracy compared to machine learning models. While prior studies on spatial
statistics and natural hazards risk modeling mainly emphasized improvements in the performance of regression and machine learning
models when using ESF (Fang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019), our research uncovers a novel outcome. In particular, we observed a

15
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

diminishing effect of ESF in improving predictive performance of models in a gradient of simple to complex forms (GLM → GAM →
GBM and RF). This observation suggests that machine learning models possess the capacity to effectively account for geographic
gradients in environmental variables, thanks to their sophisticated learning algorithms. To the best of our knowledge, this particular
insight has not been previously documented in the literature. However, such a hypothesis can be the subject of future supplementary
studies with a more diverse level of input data. Apart from complex nature of machine learning methods, another reason for this
finding could be the normalization of the input data. Normalizing or standardizing input data results in equal scaling and improved
handling of extreme values, i.e. outliers. This, in turn enables faster and more stable convergence of gradient descent-based learners
(Santurkar et al., 2018), allowing the model to learn spatial patterns more efficiently. Moreover, when the data is consistently scaled or
regularized, the model is more prone to reach a proper bias/variance tradeoff and is less likely to overfit or underfit the training data
(Briscoe and Feldman, 2011). This improves the interpretability of the learned model where it more likely captures the true spatial
patterns rather than fitting noise. It is worth mentioning that the early black-box nature of ML methods posed challenges in terms of
their transparency and explain ability, particularly when attempting to incorporate spatial eigenfunctions and augment their capacity
to account for additional spatial covariates. However, the black-box nature of ML has recently become more transparent, with the
introduction of open-source software as well as the inclusion of normalized importance weightings, providing a better understanding
of the relative significance of different factors, including spatial covariates, within the model. By normalizing the importance weights,
we can compare the impact of each feature on a common scale, making it easier to identify the most influential factors in the model’s
decision-making process. Additionally, other state-of-the-art modeling techniques, such as complex neural networks and deep learning
models, could offer further insights into the analysis of natural hazards vulnerability by capturing complex relationships among
explanatory variables (Jena et al., 2021). Specifically, in earthquake vulnerability analysis, agent-based methods can simulate the
actions and interactions of individual agents (e.g., people, buildings, infrastructure), allowing for a deeper understanding of
system-level behaviors and emergent patterns related to vulnerability and resilience (Sun et al., 2021).
Although this study offers valuable insights into enhancing natural hazards vulnerability assessments, it is important to
acknowledge some limitations. Firstly, the choice of regression-based and machine learning models, as well as the selection of vari­
ables for vulnerability analysis, can influence the results and may require adjustments in different contexts. Future studies could
explore the applicability of the proposed approach across diverse urban settings, considering a broader range of natural hazards and
incorporating additional vulnerability indicators. Notably, one significant limitation in earthquake vulnerability modeling relates to
data availability and the feasibility of generating accurate and reliable explanatory variables (Han et al., 2021; Shafapourtehrany et al.,
2022). Gathering comprehensive and high-quality data on building characteristics, infrastructure, and population density can be
challenging due to inadequate documentation, outdated records, or limited access to relevant information. Similarly, integrating
variables that account for social vulnerability and economic factors, and effectively mapping them to account for their spatial vari­
ability, may require extensive data collection efforts and collaboration across multiple disciplines. Furthermore, the development of
advanced spatial filtering techniques and the integration of more sophisticated modeling methods could contribute to the ongoing
refinement of natural hazards vulnerability assessments, particularly in urban environments.

5. Conclusion

In the field of earthquake vulnerability analysis, predictive modeling techniques such as regression-based and machine learning
models are crucial for understanding the potential impacts of seismic hazards on the built environment. These methods facilitate the
systematic identification of key factors influencing vulnerability and allow for the quantification of their relative contributions.
Additionally, predictive models can uncover spatial patterns in vulnerability, thereby aiding in the development of targeted risk
mitigation strategies. In this study, our main objectives were to develop a robust seismic vulnerability model to evaluate the sus­
ceptibility of built environments to earthquake-induced damage and to assess the effectiveness of different models in predicting
earthquake vulnerability specifically in the context of Izmir, Turkey.
We integrated spatial eigenvectors as proxy variables for spatial dependence and hypothesized that their inclusion in seismic-
related vulnerability modeling would enhance modeling performance. Five primary indicators encompassing geotechnical, phys­
ical, structural, social, and facilities data were utilized, and modeling procedures were executed regarding SRV and SRV + ESF ap­
proaches. For the latter we incorporated the Moran’s eigenvector maps (MEMs) method. The results demonstrated that the inclusion of
MEMs in seismic susceptibility modeling improved the predictive performance of all models. However, the regression-based methods,
especially GLM, showed a significant difference in performance between the SRV and SRV + ESF modeling schemes. Overall, this study
highlights the importance of incorporating spatial filtering techniques and MEMs in seismic vulnerability analysis. It provides valuable
insights into the effectiveness of different modeling approaches, offering guidance for future earthquake vulnerability assessments. The
findings contribute to improving our understanding of earthquake vulnerability in the specific context of Izmir, Turkey, and can inform
decision-making processes related to disaster risk reduction and urban planning. Izmir, a major economic, cultural, and touristic hub in
Turkey, experienced significant effects from the earthquake due to its high population density and the extensive number of buildings.
The city’s continuous growth and influx of immigrants have led to increased construction, with around 725,000 buildings, many of
which are low and mid-rise reinforced concrete structures. By assessing the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure, decision-
makers can identify high-risk areas and allocate resources for retrofitting and upgrading structures to enhance their resilience to
future earthquakes. Moreover, these models can inform urban planning strategies and building codes to ensure that new developments
incorporate seismic-resistant designs. Vulnerability maps can also serve as effective communication tools to raise public awareness
about potential risks and encourage community-level preparedness measures. Ultimately, integrating earthquake vulnerability as­
sessments into disaster risk management and urban development strategies can contribute to safer and more sustainable growth,

16
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

reducing the potential impacts of future earthquakes on the population, economy, and overall wellbeing of large cities.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Farzin Shabani: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Methodology,
Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Mohsen Ahmadi: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
draft, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Conceptualization. Orkut Murat Yilmaz: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data
curation. Bahareh Kalantar: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Software, Project administration, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Conceptualization. Mahyat Shafapourtehrany: Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Haluk Özener:
Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

Abu El-Magd, S.A., Ali, S.A., Pham, Q.B., 2021. Spatial modeling and susceptibility zonation of landslides using random forest, naïve bayes and K-nearest neighbor in a
complicated terrain. Earth Sci. Inform. 14 (3), 1227–1243.
Ahmadi, M., Hemami, M.R., Kaboli, M., Shabani, F., 2023. MaxEnt brings comparable results when the input data are being completed; Model parameterization of
four species distribution models. Ecol. Evol. 13 (2), e9827.
Akay, E., Topal, K., Kizilarslan, S., Bulbul, H., 2019. Forecasting of Turkish housing price index: ARIMA, random forest, ARIMA-random forest. Pressacademia 10 (10),
7–11.
Akinci, A., Malagnini, L., Sabetta, F., 2010. Characteristics of the strong ground motions from the 6 April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 30
(5), 320–335.
Alam, M.S., Haque, S.M., 2022. Multi-dimensional earthquake vulnerability assessment of residential neighborhoods of Mymensingh City, Bangladesh: A spatial
multi-criteria analysis based approach. J. Urban Manag. 11 (1), 37–58.
Alamanis, N., 2021. Influence of random soil strength properties on the earthquake vulnerability of slopes with embedded oil and natural gas pipelines. Energy Syst.
12 (4), 895–910.
Alizadeh, M., Hashim, M., Alizadeh, E., Shahabi, H., Karami, M.R., Beiranvand Pour, A., Pradhan, B., Zabihi, H., 2018. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) model
for seismic vulnerability assessment (SVA) of urban residential buildings. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 7 (11), 444.
Armaş, I., Ionescu, R., Gavriş, A., Toma-Danila, D., 2016. Identifying seismic vulnerability hotspots in Bucharest. Appl. Geogr. 77, 49–63.
Armaş, I., Toma-Danila, D., Ionescu, R., Gavriş, A., 2017. Vulnerability to earthquake hazard: Bucharest case study, Romania. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 8, 182–195.
Bastami, M., Abbasnejadfard, M., Motamed, H., Ansari, A., Garakaninezhad, A., 2022. Development of hybrid earthquake vulnerability functions for typical
residential buildings in Iran. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 77, 103087.
Bauman, D., Drouet, T., Dray, S., Vleminckx, J., 2018. Disentangling good from bad practices in the selection of spatial or phylogenetic eigenvectors. Ecography 41
(10), 1638–1649.
Bernardini, G., Santarelli, S., Quagliarini, E., D’Orazio, M., 2017. Dynamic guidance tool for a safer earthquake pedestrian evacuation in urban systems. Comput.,
Environ. Urban Syst. 65, 150–161.
Bessason, B., Bjarnason, J.Ö., 2016. Seismic vulnerability of low-rise residential buildings based on damage data from three earthquakes (Mw6. 5, 6.5 and 6.3). Eng.
Struct. 111, 64–79.
Breiman, L., 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32.
Briscoe, E., Feldman, J., 2011. Conceptual complexity and the bias/variance tradeoff. Cognition 118 (1), 2–16.
Chen, J., de Hoogh, K., Gulliver, J., Hoffmann, B., Hertel, O., Ketzel, M., Bauwelinck, M., Van Donkelaar, A., Hvidtfeldt, U.A., Katsouyanni, K., 2019. A comparison of
linear regression, regularization, and machine learning algorithms to develop Europe-wide spatial models of fine particles and nitrogen dioxide. Environ. Int. 130,
104934.
Chen, J.-H., Ong, C.F., Zheng, L., Hsu, S.-C., 2017. Forecasting spatial dynamics of the housing market using support vector machine. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 21
(3), 273–283.
Chun, Y., Griffith, D.A., 2014. A quality assessment of eigenvector spatial filtering based parameter estimates for the normal probability model. Spat. Stat. 10, 1–11.
Cremen, G., Galasso, C., 2020. Earthquake early warning: Recent advances and perspectives. Earth-Sci. Rev. 205, 103184.
Das, B., Rathore, P., Roy, D., Chakraborty, D., Jatav, R.S., Sethi, D., Kumar, P., 2022. Comparison of bagging, boosting and stacking algorithms for surface soil
moisture mapping using optical-thermal-microwave remote sensing synergies. Catena 217, 106485.
de Oliveira, G.G., Ruiz, L.F.C., Guasselli, L.A., Haetinger, C., 2019. Random forest and artificial neural networks in landslide susceptibility modeling: a case study of
the Fão River Basin, Southern Brazil. Nat. Hazards 99, 1049–1073.
Dray, S., Legendre, P., Peres-Neto, P.R., 2006. Spatial modelling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices (PCNM). Ecol.
Model. 196 (3-4), 483–493.
Elith, J., Leathwick, J.R., Hastie, T., 2008. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 77 (4), 802–813.
Fang, T., Chen, Y., Tan, H., Cao, J., Liao, J., Huang, L., 2019. Flood risk evaluation in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River based on eigenvector spatial filtering
poisson regression. Water 11 (10), 1969.
Ganas, A., Elias, P., Briole, P., Tsironi, V., Valkaniotis, S., Escartin, J., Karasante, I., Efstathiou, E., 2020. Fault responsible for Samos earthquake identified. Temblor.
Ganguly, K., Rao, P.J., Reddy, K.M., Sridhar, B., 2019. A Geospatial Approach to Assess the Liquefaction Vulnerability of Kutch District, Gujarat—A Case Study,
Proceedings of International Conference on Remote Sensing for Disaster Management: Issues and Challenges in Disaster Management. Springer, pp. 423-437.
Ghorbanzadeh, O., Valizadeh Kamran, K., Blaschke, T., Aryal, J., Naboureh, A., Einali, J., Bian, J., 2019. Spatial prediction of wildfire susceptibility using field survey
gps data and machine learning approaches. Fire 2 (3), 43.
Griffith, D.A., 2021. Important considerations about space-time data: Modeling, scrutiny, and ratification. Trans. GIS 25 (1), 291–310.
Griffith, D.A., Peres-Neto, P.R., 2006. Spatial modeling in ecology: the flexibility of eigenfunction spatial analyses. Ecology 87 (10), 2603–2613.

17
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Gurbuz, T., Cengiz, A., Kolemenoglu, S., Demir, C., Ilki, A., 2022. Damages and failures of structures in Izmir (Turkey) during the October 30, 2020 Aegean Sea
earthquake. J. Earthq. Eng. 1–42.
Han, J., Kim, J., Park, S., Son, S., Ryu, M., 2020. Seismic vulnerability assessment and mapping of Gyeongju, South Korea using frequency ratio, decision tree, and
random forest. Sustainability 12 (18), 7787.
Han, J., Nur, A.S., Syifa, M., Ha, M., Lee, C.-W., Lee, K.-Y., 2021. Improvement of earthquake risk awareness and seismic literacy of Korean citizens through
earthquake vulnerability map from the 2017 pohang earthquake, South Korea. Remote Sens. 13 (7), 1365.
Han, J., Park, S., Kim, S., Son, S., Lee, S., Kim, J., 2019. Performance of logistic regression and support vector machines for seismic vulnerability assessment and
mapping: a case study of the 12 September 2016 ML5. 8 Gyeongju Earthquake, South Korea. Sustainability 11 (24), 7038.
Hancilar, U., Çaktı, E., Erdik, M., Franco, G.E., Deodatis, G., 2014. Earthquake vulnerability of school buildings: Probabilistic structural fragility analyses. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 67, 169–178.
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.H., Friedman, J.H., 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer.
Hu, H., Huang, Y., Chen, Z., 2019. Seismic fragility functions for slope stability analysis with multiple vulnerability states. Environ. Earth Sci. 78, 1–10.
Huque, M.H., Bondell, H.D., Ryan, L., 2014. On the impact of covariate measurement error on spatial regression modelling. Environmetrics 25 (8), 560–570.
Islam, M.D., Li, B., Lee, C., Wang, X., 2022. Incorporating spatial information in machine learning: The Moran eigenvector spatial filter approach. Trans. GIS 26 (2),
902–922.
Jena, R., Pradhan, B., 2020. Integrated ANN-cross-validation and AHP-TOPSIS model to improve earthquake risk assessment. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50, 101723.
Jena, R., Pradhan, B., Beydoun, G., 2020. Earthquake vulnerability assessment in Northern Sumatra province by using a multi-criteria decision-making model. Int. J.
Disaster risk Reduct. 46, 101518.
Jena, R., Pradhan, B., Naik, S.P., Alamri, A.M., 2021. Earthquake risk assessment in NE India using deep learning and geospatial analysis. Geosci. Front. 12 (3),
101110.
Jha, A.K., Miner, T.W., Stanton-Geddes, Z., 2013. Building urban resilience: principles, tools, and practice. World Bank Publications..
Kavyashree, B., Patil, S., Rao, V.S., 2021. Review on vibration control in tall buildings: from the perspective of devices and applications. Int. J. Dyn. Control 9,
1316–1331.
Kheirizadeh Arouq, M., Esmaeilpour, M., Sarvar, H., 2020. Vulnerability assessment of cities to earthquake based on the catastrophe theory: a case study of Tabriz
city, Iran. Environ. Earth Sci. 79, 1–21.
Lee, S., Panahi, M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Shahabi, H., Alizadeh, M., Shirzadi, A., Khosravi, K., Melesse, A.M., Yekrangnia, M., Rezaie, F., 2019. Sevucas: A novel gis-
based machine learning software for seismic vulnerability assessment. Appl. Sci. 9 (17), 3495.
Legendre, P., Dale, M.R., Fortin, M.J., Gurevitch, J., Hohn, M., Myers, D., 2002. The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field
surveys. Ecography 25 (5), 601–615.
LeSage, J., Pace, R.K., 2009. Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Li, H., Chen, Y., Deng, S., Chen, M., Fang, T., Tan, H., 2019. Eigenvector spatial filtering-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility assessment. ISPRS Int. J.
Geo-Inf. 8 (8), 332.
Lim, W.T., Wang, L., Wang, Y., Chang, Q., 2016. Housing price prediction using neural networks, 2016 12th International conference on natural computation, fuzzy
systems and knowledge discovery (ICNC-FSKD). IEEE, pp. 518-522.
Mainali, J., Chang, H., Chun, Y., 2019. A review of spatial statistical approaches to modeling water quality. Prog. Phys. Geogr.: Earth Environ. 43 (6), 801–826.
Mokarram, M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Tiefenbacher, J.P., 2020. Using Dempster–Shafer theory to model earthquake events. Nat. Hazards 103, 1943–1959.
Motamed, H., Ghafory-Ashtiany, M., Amini-Hosseini, K., 2012. An earthquake risk-sensitive model for spatial land-use allocation, 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Nazmfar, H., 2019. An integrated approach of the analytic network process and fuzzy model mapping of evaluation of urban vulnerability against earthquake.
Geomat., Nat. Hazards Risk.
Nguyen, K.-V., Gatmiri, B., 2007. Evaluation of seismic ground motion induced by topographic irregularity. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 27 (2), 183–188.
No, W., Choi, J., Park, S., Lee, D., 2020. Balancing hazard exposure and walking distance in evacuation route planning during earthquake disasters. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-
Inf. 9 (7), 432.
Osborne, J.W., Waters, E., 2019. Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Pract. Assess., Res., Eval. 8 (1), 2.
Panahi, M., Rezaie, F., Meshkani, S., 2014. Seismic vulnerability assessment of school buildings in Tehran city based on AHP and GIS. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 14
(4), 969–979.
Park, B., Bae, J.K., 2015. Using machine learning algorithms for housing price prediction: The case of Fairfax County, Virginia housing data. Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (6),
2928–2934.
Rezaie, F., Panahi, M., 2015. GIS modeling of seismic vulnerability of residential fabrics considering geotechnical, structural, social and physical distance indicators in
Tehran using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 15 (3), 461–474.
Rosa, G.J., 2010. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction by HASTIE, T., TIBSHIRANI, R., and FRIEDMAN, J. Oxford University
Press.
Santurkar, S., Tsipras, D., Ilyas, A., Madry, A., 2018. How does batch normalization help optimization? Advances in neural information processing systems 31.
Sarreshtehdari, A., Khorasani, N.E., 2021. Integrating the fire department response within a fire following earthquake framework for application in urban areas. Fire
Saf. J. 124, 103397.
Shabani, F., Kumar, L., Ahmadi, M., 2016. A comparison of absolute performance of different correlative and mechanistic species distribution models in an
independent area. Ecol. Evol. 6 (16), 5973–5986.
Shabani, F., Kumar, L., Ahmadi, M., 2018. Assessing accuracy methods of species distribution models: AUC, specificity, sensitivity and the true skill statistic. Global.
J. Hum. -Soc. Sci.: B Geogr., Geo-Sci., Environ. Sci. Disaster Manag. 18, 1.
Shabani, F., Shafapourtehrany, M., Ahmadi, M., Kalantar, B., Özener, H., Clancy, K., Esmaeili, A., da Silva, R.S., Beaumont, L.J., Llewelyn, J., 2023. Habitat in flames:
How climate change will affect fire risk across koala forests. Environ. Technol. Innov. 32, 103331.
Shabani, M.J., Shamsi, M., Ghanbari, A., 2021. Slope topography effect on the seismic response of mid-rise buildings considering topography-soil-structure
interaction. Earthq. Struct. 20 (2), 187–200.
Shadmaan, S., Islam, A.I., 2021. Estimation of earthquake vulnerability by using analytical hierarchy process. Nat. Hazards Res. 1 (4), 153–160.
Shafapour Tehrany, M., Shabani, F., Neamah Jebur, M., Hong, H., Chen, W., Xie, X., 2017. GIS-based spatial prediction of flood prone areas using standalone
frequency ratio, logistic regression, weight of evidence and their ensemble techniques. Geomat., Nat. Hazards Risk 8 (2), 1538–1561.
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. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 79, 103154.
Sun, L., d’Ayala, D., Fayjaloun, R., Gehl, P., 2021. Agent-based model on resilience-oriented rapid responses of road networks under seismic hazard. Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Saf. 216, 108030.
Tang, P., Xia, Q., Wang, Y., 2019. Addressing cascading effects of earthquakes in urban areas from network perspective to improve disaster mitigation. International
journal of disaster risk reduction 35, 101065.
Tehrany, M.S., Kumar, L., Shabani, F., 2019. A novel GIS-based ensemble technique for flood susceptibility mapping using evidential belief function and support
vector machine: Brisbane, Australia. PeerJ 7, e7653.
Tehrany, M.S., Kumar, L., Jebur, M.N., Shabani, F., 2018. Evaluating the application of the statistical index method in flood susceptibility mapping and its comparison
with frequency ratio and logistic regression methods. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk.
Tehrany, M.S., Özener, H., Kalantar, B., Ueda, N., Habibi, M.R., Shabani, F., Saeidi, V., Shabani, F., 2021. Application of an ensemble statistical approach in spatial
predictions of bushfire probability and risk mapping. J. Sens. 2021, 1–31.

18
M. Ahmadi et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103666

Tehrany, M.S., Pradhan, B., Jebur, M.N., 2014. Flood susceptibility mapping using a novel ensemble weights-of-evidence and support vector machine models in GIS.
J. Hydrol. 512, 332–343.
Tehrany, M.S., Pradhan, B., Jebur, M.N., 2015a. Flood susceptibility analysis and its verification using a novel ensemble support vector machine and frequency ratio
method. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 29, 1149–1165.
Tehrany, M.S., Pradhan, B., Mansor, S., Ahmad, N., 2015b. Flood susceptibility assessment using GIS-based support vector machine model with different kernel types.
Catena 125, 91–101.
Umar, Z., Pradhan, B., Ahmad, A., Jebur, M.N., Tehrany, M.S., 2014. Earthquake induced landslide susceptibility mapping using an integrated ensemble frequency
ratio and logistic regression models in West Sumatera Province, Indonesia. Catena 118, 124–135.
Valavi, R., Guillera-Arroita, G., Lahoz-Monfort, J.J., Elith, J., 2022. Predictive performance of presence-only species distribution models: a benchmark study with
reproducible code. Ecol. Monogr. 92 (1), e01486.
Wang, J., Bretz, M., Dewan, M.A.A., Delavar, M.A., 2022. Machine learning in modelling land-use and land cover-change (LULCC): Current status, challenges and
prospects. Sci. Total Environ. 822, 153559.
Wang, Y., Kockelman, K.M., Wang, X.C., 2013. Understanding spatial filtering for analysis of land use-transport data. J. Transp. Geogr. 31, 123–131.
Weng, Q., 2010. Remote sensing and GIS integration.
Yariyan, P., Avand, M., Soltani, F., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Blaschke, T., 2020. Earthquake vulnerability mapping using different hybrid models. Symmetry 12 (3), 405.
Zhang, C., Ma, Y., 2012. Ensemble machine learning: methods and applications. Springer.
Zhou, W., Bi, K., Hao, H., Pham, T.M., Chen, W., 2023. Development of locally resonant meta-basement for seismic induced vibration control of high-rise buildings.
Eng. Struct. 275, 115229.

19