Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

Flood hazard zone mapping incorporating geographic information system

(GIS) and multi-criteria analysis (MCA) techniques
Yu Chen
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, College of Hydraulic and Hydroelectric Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China

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

This manuscript was handled by Andras Bar­
dossy, Editor-in-Chief, with the assistance of
Sheng Yue, Associate Editor
Keywords:
Flood hazard mapping
Geographic information system (GIS)
Multi-criteria analysis (MCA)
Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
Technique ordered preference by similarity to
the ideal solution (TOPSIS)
Ordered weighted averaging (OWA)
Flood is one of the most common natural disasters worldwide and has caused serious harm to humans, socio-
economy and the environment. Identification and classification of flood hazard areas is therefore essential for
flood management and risk decision-making which attempt to combat this challenge. This study selected eleven
flood hazard conditioning factors as evaluation criteria, integrated geographic information system (GIS) with
three multi-criteria analysis (MCA) techniques, viz. the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), technique ordered
preference by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS), and ordered weighted averaging (OWA), to form a GIS-
MCA framework for analyzing the spatial distribution of flood-prone areas. Its application in the Dadu River
basin, China derived a total of eleven flood hazard maps across the basin, and their analysis and comparison
results demonstrated the spatial distributions of flood-prone areas based on various GIS-MCA approaches and
their overlap situations, and indicated that hazard class distribution patterns of the AHP, TOPSIS, and OWA (α =
1) maps are similar, and Luding, Yuexi and their nearby areas are the highest hazard zones, where should be
concerned on firstly under the condition of limited resources. To validate the three MCA methods, the AHP,
TOPSIS, and OWA (α = 1) maps were compared with the historical flood disaster ranges. The verification results
exhibited that the largest proportion of historical flood disaster ranges fell into the high and highest hazard levels
in the three maps, and shown the resultant flood hazard maps are scientific, rational and consistent with the
actual situation. The GIS-MCA approach is a powerful and feasible guidance tool for conducting flood disaster
management studies, and a reference for future more efficient flood management and risk decision-making in the
basin.

1. Introduction
Floods is one of the most frequent, destructive and widespread nat­
ural disaster worldwide, generally induced by the composed situation of
heavy rainfall and unfavorable geographical environment, and has
caused serious life loss and economic damage over the past decades
(Gaume et al., 2009). To prevent and alleviate future flood disaster loss
and damage, flood risk assessment and management researches came
into being and developing. The primary step of formulating effective
studies is to conduct a flood hazard assessment, which considers the
combined influence of disaster-inducing factors and disaster-forming
environment, mainly studies the hazard of a certain area that may be
hit by floods, and can reflect the spatial distribution of flood hazardous
degree via visualized flood hazard maps. Flood hazard map depicts areas
that may be at various-level flood hazard, can serve as spatial decision-
making and planning guidance (Greiving et al., 2005), early risk iden­
tification assistance, and public awareness enhancement channel (De
Moel et al., 2009), and therefore has been an important flood risk
communication tool and scientific basis for flood disaster management,
and widely applied to various fields, such as floodplain management,
flood insurance, and disaster warning systems (Wang et al., 2015).
Accordingly, developing an effective flood hazard assessment method
with visualized flood hazard maps as outputs is urgently necessary.
Recently, numerous methods and models have been proposed and
used for flood hazard zoning, wherein satellite images and geographic
information system (GIS) have gradually taken precedence with the
advancement of satellite technology (Asare-Kyei et al., 2015). GIS can
provide a common framework and spatial state for the data representing
flood causal factors obtained from various sources to generate new de­
rivative maps, interpret the assessment results intuitionistic due to its
visualization capacity, and be used as a decision support system
(Kourgialas and Karatzas, 2011; Nyimbili et al., 2018).
Diverse approaches have been applied to integrate flood factors in a
GIS environment (Toosi et al., 2019). Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is

E-mail address: rainchen393@hotmail.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128268
Received 20 January 2022; Accepted 23 July 2022
Available online 30 July 2022
0022-1694/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Y. Chen
one of the most widely used decision analysis techniques in the GIS
environment (Malczewski et al., 2003), particularly in natural hazard
studies (Jozaghi et al., 2018; Nefeslioglu et al., 2013; Sinha et al., 2008).
GIS-based MCA can be regarded as a set of techniques and procedures
that transform and combine geographical data and the decision maker’s
preferences to obtain decision-making information (Kourgialas and
Karatzas, 2011; Nyimbili et al., 2018). The integration of MCA with GIS
for analyzing flood hazard zones depends on the geographical distri­
bution of the alternatives and the value judgments incorporated in the
process of decision-making (Nyimbili et al., 2018), and provides base
maps for planning and formulating more flexible and accurate risk de­
cisions. Based on the synergetic capabilities of GIS and MCA, the benefits
of promoting the theoretical and applied research of GIS-MCDA have
been prominently protruded (Malczewski, 2006).
There have been a large number of studies that focus on the use of
GIS-MCA for flood hazard assessment (Chen et al., 2015; Fernández and
Lutz, 2010; Kourgialas and Karatzas, 2017, 2016; Sanyal and Lu, 2006;
Toosi et al., 2019). It can be concluded from these researches that the
selection of the MCA approach is very important since it has a consid­
erable effect on the outcome. According to a survey of the current state
of the art taken by (De Brito and Evers, 2016), it can be obtained that the
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was the most popular method, fol­
lowed by Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal So­
lution (TOPSIS).
AHP is the most common used MCA method in the flood risk man­
agement field, and has been proven to be efficient for developing
automated methods to quantify the spatial variability of flood hazards
and the associated problems (Dahri and Abida, 2017; De Brito and Evers,
2016). Stefanidis and Stathis (2013) coupled the analytical hierarchy
process (AHP) and GIS to assess the flood hazard, based on natural and
anthropogenic factors. Kazakis et al. (2015) superimposed seven pa­
rameters to an index and utilized the index and AHP model to map the
regional-scaled flood hazard in Greece. The ability of the presented
method was shown by comparing resulted maps with historical flood
data. Dahri and Abida (2017) applied AHP and GIS to delineate and
characterize flood hazard areas in Gabes Catchment (southeastern
Tunisia) based on the geological map, digital elevation model, land use,
and rainfall data. In the study of Luu et al. (2018), AHP was used to
assess the criteria and sub-criteria of the flood hazard. This assessment
was integrated with GIS to produce a flood hazard map.
TOPSIS has been increasingly applied in flood risk management
because of its ability to deal with multiple attributes (De Brito and Evers,
2016). Ghanbarpour et al. (2013) used TOPSIS to optimize flood control
by comparing flood mitigation alternatives based on various criteria.
TOPSIS was combined with a non-parameter resampling bootstrap
technique by Mojtahedi and Oo (2016) to analyze and rank the flood risk
of Australian states and territories. Luu et al. (2019) proposed a new
assessment tool, multiple linear regression-TOPSIS, to analyze the flood
disaster data of Vietnam’s regions and provinces, which provides
accessible information for decision-makers and planners to classify the
most at-risk areas.
In recent years, the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) method has
also been gradually effectively applied in flood hazard researches. Xiao
et al. (2017) developed an MCA framework incorporating GIS, fuzzy
AHP, and OWA method, based on selecting geographical, hydrological,
and other factors as criteria, and taken the lower Han River region as the
study area to implement flood hazard assessment with analyzing
different risk attitudes of decision-makers. Gilandeh et al. (2020)
employed the GIS-OWA model to extract flood potential maps of
Meshkinshahr city, Iran, which can be seen as a useful tool for deter­
mining and classifying flood-prone areas in Meshkinshahr city and its
surrounding drainage basin. To concern the uncertainty related to
criteria weights, spatial heterogeneity of preferences, and the risk atti­
tude of the analyst, Tang et al. (2018) used Monte Carlo simulation to
integrate OWA and probabilistic methods, to delineate the potential
flood susceptible areas. Vanolya and Niaraki (2021) adopted the GIS-
2
Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268
OWA model to generate flood hazard maps of the Mazandaran prov­
ince of Iran according to pessimistic or optimistic strategies, of which
subjective and subjective–objective weights were assigned by AHP and
entropy-AHP methods, respectively.
To highlight the decision maker’s risk preference and ensure the
operability, comparability and applicability of the research, AHP,
TOPSIS and OWA are utilized. This study is centered on developing a
framework for mapping the basin-scale flood hazard by integrating GIS
and AHP, TOPSIS and OWA, and comparing the three GIS-MCA
methods-resulted flood hazard maps for identifying and analyzing the
flood at-hazard areas, and consequently to determine the applicability of
these techniques in flood risk management.
2. Study area
The Dadu River flows from the eastern Tibetan Plateau into the ­
Sichuan Basin where it joins with the Min River, a tributary of
the Yangtze River, China, and is 1,062 km in length with a catchment
area of 77,400 km2. It is actually longer than the Min River and thus
forms the main stem of the Min River system (Fig. 1).
The upper river is located in the plateau frigid sub-humid zone. The
middle reach has a humid subtropical climate, while the downstream
has a warm and humid subtropical climate without obvious seasonal
change (Huang et al., 2012). The rainy season is distributed from May to
October, with approximately 90 % of the annual precipitation. The
annual rainfall ranges from 800 mm to 1,000 mm, increasing from
northwest to southeast. And the basin runoff is mainly formed by rain­
fall, with an average annual runoff of 4.7 × 1010 m3.
During the past 100 years, many extreme floods occurred in the
basin. The basin-wide historical flood investigation and re-examination
show that the largest and second-largest floods occurred in 1904 and
1939, respectively. And since 1960, the most extreme events took place
on 26 October 1968, 11 January 1978, 7 December 2000, 4 November
2001, and 12 February 2003 (Kourgialas and Karatzas, 2011).
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection
The primary challenge of generating flood hazard zoning maps is to
identify the flood disaster-inducing factors and disaster-forming envi­
ronment factors based on the actual conditions of the study area and
regional flood characteristics, and to prepare corresponding thematic
layers in geospatial format. According to previous literature on flood
hazard (Alaghmand et al., 2010; Kourgialas and Karatzas, 2017; Toosi
et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2015; Xiao et al., 2017), eleven flood hazard
conditioning parameters for the present work are derived. The thorough
procedure of collecting data is described as follows and the derived GIS
layers are shown in Fig. 2. To perform algebraic and logical operations,
all thematic layers were resampled as raster data with 30 m spatial
resolution (Shao et al., 2015).
Rainfall intensity: Based on the collected monthly precipitation
data at the observational stations in and out of the Dadu River basin
during the time period 1960–2013, the Modified Fournier Index (MFI) is
applied to create the rainfall intensity map (Toosi et al., 2019):
∑
12
p2
MFI = (1)
P
1
where MFI is the modified Fournier index, expresses the sum of the
∑12
average monthly rainfall intensity at a station. 1 is the 12-month
summation, p is the average monthly rainfall, and P is the average
annual rainfall. Then the MIF values of the stations are interpolated by
Inverse Distance Weight (IDW) interpolation technology.
Elevation: Elevation plays a vital role in the hydrological response of
different regions in the study area. The areas with low elevation
Y. Chen
Fig. 1. Sketch map of the Dadu River basin.
(downstream areas) are supposed to be more susceptible to floods, and
vice versa (Sepehri et al., 2019; Talukdar et al., 2020). Digital elevation
model (DEM) is a principal source of extracting topographic condition of
the study area, and can be used to extract elevation, slope, aspect, cur­
vature, TWI, SPI and distance to the river for this research (Khosravi
et al., 2016). The DEM data with a spatial resolution of 30 m was ob­
tained from the Geospatial Data Cloud (https://www.gscloud.cn/).
Slope: Slope is directly related to flooding as it contributes to the
runoff velocity and vertical percolation of the water (Talukdar et al.,
2020). With the decline in the slope, the water infiltration rate and the
water velocity increase and reduce, respectively, and therefore, the
chances of flooding increase.
Aspect: It governs evapotranspiration, soil moisture retention and
vegetation development, thereby determining the flow direction and
infiltration-to-runoff ratio (Sahana and Patel, 2019).
Curvature: Curvature reflects the morphology of the topography
and can affect flooding in a given area (Khosravi et al., 2019). Negative,
zero and positive curvatures denote concave, flat and convex surfaces
(Khosravi et al., 2016). The activity of runoff is associated with the
concave surfaces, which are highly susceptible to flooding (Talukdar
et al., 2020).
Topographic wetness index (TWI): TWI signifies the propensity for
flow accumulation, quantifies the effect of topography on hydrological
processes, and is thus a useful index for assessing the flood susceptibility
in any river basin (Sahana et al., 2020). It can be calculated as Eq. (2),
which is proposed based on the assumption of steady-state conditions
and uniform soil properties (Gokceoglu et al., 2005).
TWI = ln(As /tanβ) (2)
where As and tanβ represents the cumulative upslope area and the
slope gradient (in degrees).
3
Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268
Stream power index (SPI): SPI represents the erosive power of flow
water. It can be calculated using the following formula (Wang et al.,
2015):
SPI = ln(1 + As ⋅tanβ) (3)
Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI): NDVI describes
the condition of vegetation cover, and reflects the background influence
of the plant canopy (Wang et al., 2015). Dense vegetation cover with
deep and extensive root zones can reduce flood and water erosion haz­
ards, and vice versa (Kourgialas and Karatzas, 2017).
Land use land cover (LULC): LULC describes the appearance of the
landscape and is generally classified by the amount and type of vege­
tation (Elkhrachy, 2015). Its classes directly or indirectly influence
infiltration, evapotranspiration and runoff generation, thereby condi­
tioning flood events and peaks. In this study, the LULC attributes are
extracted from the global land cover data (https://data.ess.tsinghua.edu
.cn/).
Distance to the river (DTR): DTR indicates the distance between
each grid and the river, and affects the velocity and extent of floods in
the region (Khosravi et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2018). Areas next to the river
are prone to flooding, and the chance of flood occurrence increases with
the declines of the index value. Its extraction is conducted by using
Euclidean distance in a GIS environment.
Soil texture (ST): As a soil property, ST describes the relative pro­
portion of different grain sizes of mineral particles in a soil, and de­
termines the water infiltration and runoff generation. Data from the
National Cryosphere Desert Data Center (https://www.ncdc.ac.cn) and
the USDA soil taxonomy classification are used to prepare a soil texture
map.
Y. Chen Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268

Fig. 2. Characteristic distributions of flood hazard conditioning parameters.

4
Y. Chen Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268

3.2. Multi-Criteria analysis (MCA) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅

√∑
√ n
Si− =√ (vij − A−j )2 , i = 1, …, m (9)
3.2.1. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) j=1
AHP method is the most implemented MCA method that constructs
the complex decision problem into a hierarchical framework, estimates
the criteria weights using pairwise comparison with numerical impor­ Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness of alternatives to the ideal
tance scales (Saaty, 2008), and provides a systematic approach for solution Ci:
assessing and integrating the impacts of various factors in flood risk
Si−
management field, which makes complex risk management decision Ci = , i = 1, …, m, 0 < Ci < 1 (10)
Si∗ + Si−
problem easy to analyze and handle with (Stefanidis and Stathis, 2013;
Xiao et al., 2017).
For each level of the decision-criteria hierarchy framework, there is a 3.2.3. Ordered weighted averaging (OWA)
control process of pairwise comparisons between the criteria, which is The OWA operator proposed by Yager (1988) provides a parame­
made through Saaty’s comparative scale (Table 1) (Dahri and Abida, terized multi-criteria aggregation method (Kiavarz and Jelokhani-
2017). These assigned weights were normalized by the eigenvector Niaraki, 2017). It involves both criterion weights and order weights.
technique and finally tested for consistency by computing a consistency The criterion weights are assigned to evaluation criteria or attributes in a
ratio (CR), which must be less than 0.1 so as to be accepted (Toosi et al., study area to indicate their relative importance according to the decision
2019; Stefanidis and Stathis, 2013). Otherwise, value judgments have to maker’s preferences (Ahmed, 2015). Order weights are assigned to the
be recalculated. rank order position of factor values for a given location. The calculation
The final step is the integration of the weights associated with procedure is as follows.
attribute map layers derived by AHP and the attribute map layers in the Given a set of standardized attribute values xi1, xi2, …, xin (0 ≤ xij ≤ 1;
GIS environment. i = 1, 2,…, m, j = 1, 2, …, n), the OWA operator can be defined as: In → I
that has an associated set of order weights v1, v2, …, vn (0⩽vj ⩽1,
∑n
3.2.2. Technique ordered preference by similarity to the ideal solution j=1 vj = 1; j = 1, 2, …, n), and calculated as:
(TOPSIS) ∑
OWA = vj zij (11)
TOPSIS proposed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) can integrate seam­ j
lessly with GIS, and can be implemented according to the following steps
(Kaliszewski and Podkopaev, 2016; Milani et al., 2005): where zi1 ≥ zi2 ≥ … ≥ zin is the sequence obtained by reordering the
attribute values xi1, xi2, …, xin in descending order. vj is associated with
Step 1: Construct the normalized decision matrix R={rij}: the attribute values on a location-by-location basis, and assigned to the
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∑ ith location’s attribute values in decreasing order without consideration
rij = dij / d2ij , i = 1, …, m, j = 1, …, n (4) of with which attribute they are associated. The first ordered weight, v1,
i is assigned to the highest attribute value for the ith location, and simi­
where dij is the value of the ith alternative (Ai: i = 1,…,m) with respect larly, vn is assigned to the lowest attribute value. Apparently, a partic­
to the jth attribute (Xj: j = 1,…,n). ular value of aij is not associated with a particular weight vj but rather a
weight is assigned to a particular ordered position of xij (Kiavarz and
Step 2: Weigh the normalized decision matrix V={vij}: Jelokhani-Niaraki, 2017; Malczewski et al., 2003).
For each criterion xij, the jth attribute associated with the ith location
vij = wj rij , i = 1, …, m; j = 1, …, n (5) (raster), specify benefit and cost types based on the direct/inverse re­
where wj is the weight of the jth attribute. lationships between criteria and flood hazard, Eqs. (12) and (13) can
respectively be used to convert the attribute values into standardized
Step 3: Ascertain Positive Ideal Solution (PIS) and Negative Ideal values.
Solution (NIS), A∗j andA−j ,j = 1, …, n: yij − ymin
(12)
j
xij =
A∗j = (v∗1 , v∗2 , …, v∗j , …, v∗n ) = [(maxvij |j ∈ J1 ), (minvij |j ∈ J2 )| i = 1, …, m] ymax
j − ymin
j
n n

(6) ymax − yij

(13)
j
xij =
ymax
j − ymin
j
A−j = (v−1 , v−2 , …, v−j , …, v−n ) = [(minvij |j ∈ J1 ), (maxvij |j ∈ J2 )| i = 1, …, m]
n n

(7) where yij is the jth attribute value for the ith location, ymin
j and ymax
j
represent the minimum and maximum values for the jth attribute,
where J1 and J2 are a group of benefit attributes and cost attributes, respectively (Kiavarz and Jelokhani-Niaraki, 2017).
respectively. Factually, the GIS-based decision-making problems require a set of
different weights to be assigned to attributes (criteria), which is ignored
Step 4: Measure the distances of each alternative, from PIS and NIS, for the OWA operator denoted by Eq. (11). In response, an attribute
S∗i andS−i ,i = 1, …, m: weight modification approach was proposed to generate the order
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√∑ weights based on the inclusion of the attribute weights into the OWA
√ n
Si∗ = √ (vij − A∗j )2 , i = 1, …, m (8) operator as follows (Kiavarz and Jelokhani-Niaraki, 2017):
j=1

Table 1
Scales for pair-wise AHP comparisons (Wind and Saaty, 1980).
Intensity of importance 1 3 5 7 9 2,4,6,8 Reciprocals

Description of importance Equal Moderate Essential Demonstrated Extreme Intermediate Values for inverse comparison

5
Y. Chen Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268

∑j
uk
α ∑j− 1 α
uk Jelokhani-Niaraki, 2017). Higher values of α mean decision-makers tend
vj = (∑k=1
n ) − (∑k=1
n ) (14) to be more risk-taking while its lower values represent that the risk-
u k k=1 uk
aversion tendency is dominant (Shorabeh et al., 2019).
k=1

where α is the operator parameter, corresponding to different lin­

guistic quantifiers, and as α varies, different sets of order weights are 4. Results and comparative analysis
obtained. uj is the reordered jth attribute weight, wj, according to the
reordered attribute value zij. wj is the attribute weight assigned to jth 4.1. AHP, TOPSIS and OWA maps
attribute for all locations, indicates the relative importance of the
attribute according to the decision maker’s preferences, and is deter­ After careful analysis of the set of evaluation criteria (attributes),
mined by the AHP method in this study. In the GIS-based MCA pro­ importance judgment to attributes is derived from AHP. MFI is regarded
cedures, the attribute weights typically have the following as the most important criterion (attribute) with the largest weight value
∑ ∑n
property: nj=1 wj = 1. Accordingly, j=1 uj = 1 and Eq. (14) can be of 0.1924, followed by DTR with the weight value of 0.1670. Elevation
written as follows: and NDVI are respectively considered as the third and fourth most
important criteria, and their weight values are 0.1374 and 0.1162,
∑n ∑n− 1
vj = ( uj )α − ( uj )α (15) respectively. Subsequently, the weights of SPI, Soil, LULC and slope are
j=1 j=1 0.1087, 0.0909, 0.0705 and 0.0563 respectively. The TWI, Curvature,
and Aspect are the less important indicators, and their weights are
and the OWA operator can be defined as:
0.0313, 0.0148 and 0.0148, respectively.
∑n
uvz Via the weighted sum analysis process, the flood hazard map was
OWAi = ∑nj j ij (16)
j=1 uj vj
implemented shown in Fig. 3(a), which was reclassified into five levels,
j=1
i.e., lowest, low, moderate, high, and highest hazard by using the natural
Eq. (16) can be recognized as the conventional weighted linear break method. This technique of flood hazard zoning was implemented
combination with modified criterion weights. The weights are obtained for the rest two methods (TOPSIS and OWA).
by multiplying the criterion weights by the order weights (Malczewski The main calculation procedures of TOPSIS were as outlined in Sec
et al., 2003). 3.2. And the generated flood hazard map is shown in Fig. 3 (b).
By adjusting the level of risk for the decision problem, the OWA al­ A visual comparison between the AHP-based and TOPSIS-based flood
gorithm can transfer between logical operations AND and OR at well to hazard maps revealed similar spatial distribution patterns for various
obtain different evaluation results. The choice of operator parameter α flood hazard levels. Both maps show that Luding, Yuexi and their nearby
supports for the decision-makers can control the magnitude of decision areas were at the most hazard, as shown in red, those at high hazard
risk along the continuum ranging from the pessimistic to optimistic level in orange were areas around the midstream of the basin, with the
decision strategies (Kiavarz and Jelokhani-Niaraki, 2017). TOPSIS map covering relatively more of these areas than the AHP map
1 and of a wider distribution towards the southern part of the region. In
ORness = α⩾0 (17) the TOPSIS map, the low and lowest hazard areas in light and dark green
α+1
covered almost the entire northern region and eastern part of upstream,
The degree of ORness indicates the position of the OWA on a con­ while in the AHP map, the northern region of the basin was mainly at the
tinuum between the AND or OR combination rules. It is calculated as: moderate hazard (in light yellow).
1 ∑ n The derived criteria weights from AHP has been discussed in Section
ORness = (n − j)vj 0⩽ORness⩽1 (18) 4.1, and the OWA order weights were calculated using different α values
n − 1 j=1
in light of Eq. (15) and shown in Table 3, where the value of αcan be
The measure of ORness ranges from 0 to 1. selected in the range from 0 to ∞ according to decision makers’ risk
With different sets of OWA order weights calculated based on various preferences. OWA-based flood hazard maps are shown in Fig. 4.
ORness (or α) values, it can be generated that a variety of GIS-based map Fig. 4 illustrated that the results are highly sensitive to the change of
combination strategies ranging from a minimum-type (logical AND) α, and the overall hazard situation is exacerbated with the increase of α.
combination through all intermediate types (including the conventional The maximum trade-off was achieved when α = 1, which made the
WLC) to a maximum-type (logical OR) combination (see Table 2). The hazard assessment implemented by neutral attitude (i.e. with no risk
AND and OR operators represent the extreme cases of OWA (Kiavarz and preference). The high and very high hazard area was significantly
increased when the value of α increased from 1 to ∞. More high-hazard
areas are presented and need to be noticed. And more corresponding
Table 2 mitigation measures will be put forward to avoid the potential hazard
The order weights and the corresponding decision. and reduce the potential loss (Xiao et al., 2017). While when the value of
α Linguistic Order GIS ORness Decision α decreased from 1 to 0, the high and very high hazard area was
quantifier weights combination value strategy significantly decreased. Some potential hazard zone may not be exposed
algorithm and suffer from flood damage.
α→0 At least one v1 = 1, vj = OWA (OR) 1 Extremely
0 (j = 2, …, optimistic 4.2. Comparative analysis
n)
α= At least a vj = 1/n (j OWA 0.83 Very
0.2 few = 1, …, n) optimistic
Figs. 3-4 illustrate that flood hazard level distribution patterns of
α= a few 0.67 Optimistic AHP, TOPSIS, and OWA (α = 1) maps are similar, which also can be
0.5 confirmed by the statistical analysis results. There are strong correla­
α=1 Half OWA (WLC) 0.5 Neutral tions between the OWA (α = 1) and AHP maps, the TOPSIS and AHP
(identity)
maps, and the OWA (α = 1) and TOPSIS maps, with corresponding
α=2 Most OWA 0.33 Pessimistic
α=5 Almost 0.17 Very correlation coefficients of 0.9891, 0.9049 and 0.9034, respectively. The
pessimistic detailed spatial distribution similarities and differences of the flood
α→∞ All vn = 1, vj = OWA (AND) 0 Extremely hazard maps were discussed by implementing the cross-tabulation
0 (j = 1, …, pessimistic analysis, and the results are shown in Fig. 5 and Tables 4–6. The per­
n-1)
centages of each flood hazard level area derived from AHP, TOPSIS, and

6
Y. Chen Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268

Fig. 3. Flood hazard maps based on (a) AHP and (b) TOPSIS.

Table 3
OWA order weights under different α values.
α α→0 α = 0.1 α = 0.2 α = 0.5 α=1 α=2 α=5 α = 10 α→∞
ORness 1 0.91 0.83 0.67 0.5 0.33 0.17 0.09 0
Order V1 1 0.7868 0.6190 0.3015 0.0909 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 0
Weight V2 0 0.0565 0.0921 0.1249 0.0909 0.0248 0.0002 0.0000 0
V3 0 0.0349 0.0601 0.0958 0.0909 0.0413 0.0013 0.0000 0
V4 0 0.0256 0.0457 0.0808 0.0909 0.0579 0.0048 0.0000 0
V5 0 0.0204 0.0373 0.0712 0.0909 0.0744 0.0130 0.0003 0
V6 0 0.0170 0.0317 0.0643 0.0909 0.0909 0.0289 0.0020 0
V7 0 0.0146 0.0277 0.0592 0.0909 0.1074 0.0561 0.0086 0
V8 0 0.0128 0.0247 0.0551 0.0909 0.1240 0.0991 0.0305 0
V9 0 0.0115 0.0224 0.0517 0.0909 0.1405 0.1632 0.0930 0
V10 0 0.0104 0.0205 0.0489 0.0909 0.1570 0.2543 0.2511 0
V11 0 0.0095 0.0189 0.0465 0.0909 0.1736 0.3791 0.6145 1

OWA methods were demonstrated in Fig. 6.
In Fig. 5, AHP | TOPSIS, AHP | OWA (α = 1) and TOPSIS | OWA (α =
1) combinations, distinguished by various color-bar hazard level overlap
identifiers, reveal the spatial coincidence for each set of maps by
comparing hazard level values on the same grid in every-two maps.
By using the image cross-tabulation method, the flood hazard levels
of two maps are compared and a tabulation is obtained of the rate of
crossed classified cells in each combination. For instance, 1 | 1 in dark
green in Fig. 5(a) expresses the overlap portion of zones with the lowest
hazard level in both the AHP and OWA (α = 1) maps, whose area ac­
counts for 2.16 % of the total area, which can be red from the second row
of Table 4. Similarly, 5 | 5 in red in Fig. 5(b) implies the overlap portion
of zones with the highest hazard level in both the AHP and TOPSIS maps.
The area of crossed grids accounts for 1.99 % of the total area, which can
be checked from the sixth row of Table 5.
For all TOPSIS | OWA (α = 1) combinations with the TOPSIS-map
hazard level values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, the strongest over­
lap distributes in the lowest hazard area (level value 1), low hazard area
(level value 2), low hazard area (level value 2), moderate hazard area
(level value 3) and highest hazard area (level value 5) in the OWA (α =
1) map. While in terms of the comparison of the AHP map and OWA (α
= 1) map, for all the combinations with the AHP-map hazard level
values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, the largest overlap intersperses
among the lowest, low, moderate, high and highest hazard areas,
respectively, in the OWA (α = 1) map. In contrast, the AHP map and
OWA (α = 1) map are more compatible, with higher similarity of spatial
distribution for flood hazard level.
In Tables 4–6, the correlation coefficient Cramer’s V, ranges from
0 to 1 was utilized to illustrate the correlation degree between two flood
hazard maps. The higher the Cramer’s V value, the more perfect the
cross-correlation between the compared two maps. The Kappa Index of
Agreement (KIA) value was derived from the cross-correlation analysis
as well, and regarded as an evidence of describing the similarity between
the two flood hazard maps. Both the Cramer’s V and overall KIA values
in Tables 4–6 expresses a favorable similarity between the compared
flood hazard maps.
As shown in Fig. 6(b), the histogram of OWA (α = 1) map exhibits a
near normal distribution, following by the histogram of AHP map,
whereas that of TOPSIS map is positively skewed showing that low and
lowest hazard levels constitute more areas in the TOPSIS map than AHP
or OWA (α = 1) map. It may be caused by the theoretical natures of the
applied MCA approaches. The AHP method, weighting each criterion

7
Y. Chen Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268

Fig. 4. Flood hazard maps based on OWA under different α values.

8
Y. Chen Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268

Fig. 5. Cross-classification maps of (a) OWA (α = 1) and AHP, (b) TOPSIS and AHP, and (c) OWA (α = 1) and TOPSIS (1-Lowest; 2-Low; 3-Moderate; 4-High;
5-Highest).

Table 4
Cross-correlation of the OWA (columns) against AHP (rows) maps.
1 2 3 4 5 Total KIA Statistical data

1 0.0286 0.0122 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0408 0.6922 Cramer’s V = 0.8551

2 0.0003 0.7100 0.0245 0.0001 0.0000 0.7349 0.8783
3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0969 0.0164 0.0000 0.1133 0.8354 Overall k = 0.8626
4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0664 0.0079 0.0743 0.8837
5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0368 0.0368 1.000
Total 0.0289 0.7222 0.1214 0.0828 0.0447 1.000

Table 5
Cross-correlation of the TOPSIS (columns) against AHP (rows) maps.
1 2 3 4 5 Total KIA Statistical data

1 0.0216 0.0091 0.0060 0.0027 0.0014 0.0408 0.4766 Cramer’s V = 0.4620

2 0.0567 0.6614 0.0112 0.0031 0.0025 0.7349 0.6241
3 0.0215 0.0530 0.0251 0.0079 0.0057 0.1133 0.1634 Overall k = 0.4425
4 0.0005 0.0104 0.0243 0.0250 0.0142 0.0743 0.2988
5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0027 0.0141 0.0199 0.0368 0.5216
Total 0.1002 0.7340 0.0693 0.0527 0.0438 1.000

Table 6
Cross-correlation of the OWA (columns) against TOPSIS (rows) maps.
1 2 3 4 5 Total KIA Statistical data

1 0.0142 0.0538 0.0311 0.0011 0.0000 0.1002 0.1161 Cramer’s V = 0.4573

2 0.0067 0.6540 0.0560 0.0171 0.0001 0.7340 0.6079
3 0.0045 0.0098 0.0226 0.0282 0.0042 0.0693 0.2331 Overall k = 0.4174
4 0.0023 0.0027 0.0066 0.0233 0.0179 0.0527 0.3906
5 0.0012 0.0020 0.0050 0.0131 0.0224 0.0438 0.4891
Total 0.0289 0.7222 0.1214 0.0828 0.0447 1.000

based on the pair-wise comparison matrix with the subjectivity, more or
less dependent on the effects of one or several flood conditioning factors.
However, the OWA algorithm using two-step weighting (criterion and
order weights) mode can effectively weaken the effect of subjective
evaluation fluctuation value on the accuracy of weights, correct some
shortcomings of traditional AHP, and make the calculation results more
adaptable to different flood hazard levels. While, the positive and
negative ideal solutions to be defined in the core step of the TOPSIS
algorithm are often difficult to determine, and can only be ascertained
according to the best and worst parts of each evaluated indicator, which
is often imprecise and cumbersomely processed.
Each MCA method can generate various flood hazard maps via

9
Y. Chen Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268

Fig. 6. (a) Percentages of flood hazard level area derived from AHP, TOPSIS and OWA (α → 0, α = 0.1, α = 0.2, α = 0.5, α = 1, α = 2, α = 5, α = 10, α→∞) maps; (b)
Distributions of hazard levels in AHP, TOPSIS and OWA (α = 1) maps (1-Lowest; 2-Low; 3-Moderate; 4-High; 5-Highest).

assigning criteria or order weights according to its own way. Thereby, it flooded areas distributed in the low and lowest hazard zones is close to
is hard to declare which method is optimal. Researchers and decision- each other, ranging from 0 to 1 %, wherein the flood disaster area is the
makers can select the suitable one based on the research object and least in the lowest hazard zones. While the percentage of flood disaster
the actual situation of the study area. areas falling into the moderate hazard level is higher in 2008 compared
to in 1973, and more than 78 % of the flooded area is distributed in the
moderate, high, and highest hazard zones.
4.3. Validation of the results
The results of the FR model show that the highest hazard-level areas
has the largest ratio, followed by the high hazard-level areas, both of
To demonstrate the reliability of the flood hazard assessment results,
which are greater than 1, indicating that flooding is more likely to occur
the resultant flood hazard maps were validated using the statistical
in the high and highest hazard-level areas. The ratios of the regions with
ranges of historical flood disasters in the basin in 1973 and 2008,
low and lowest hazard levels are the smallest, both less than 1, indi­
respectively. For this purpose, the AHP, TOPSIS, and OWA (α = 1) maps
cating that flooding is less likely to occur in the low and lowest-level
were separately overlaid with the 1973′ s and the 2008′ s flood disaster
areas. It is clear from the analysis that the flood hazard assessment re­
range maps, extracted from the government publications (Chinese
sults are scientific, rational and consistent with the actual situation of
Academy of Meteorological Sciences, 1981; Shared Platform Data Pro­
the basin.
duction Group, 2006; Xiao, 2009), and the percentages of flood disaster
zones in all flood hazard levels for three maps can be derived corre­
5. Discussion
spondingly. The spatial relationship between historical flood disaster
ranges and flood hazard levels of the AHP, TOPSIS, and OWA (α = 1)
This study integrated GIS with three MCA approaches, AHP, TOPSIS,
maps were derived using the frequency ratio (FR) model. In this model,
and OWA respectively to generate flood hazard maps of the Dadu River
the ratio is the rate of the area of historical flood disaster to the total
basin in China and implemented comparative analysis for the resulting
area, and 1 is taken as the average value. If the ratio is more than 1, it
maps, of which results can support decision-makers and planners to
indicates a higher correlation, whereas the ratio is less than 1 refers to a
select appropriate GIS-MCA method for research needs, identify the
lower correlation (Akgun et al., 2007). The verification results are
level of flood hazard areas and develop appropriate flood management
exhibited in Figs. 7-8.
strategies. The unique suitability for each of these techniques is as
In terms of the distribution of flood areas in 1973, the high and
follows.
highest hazard zones distributed the largest flood disaster areas,
As an effective tool for system analysis, AHP solves decision
reaching more than 90 % of the total flood areas. The percentage of

Fig. 7. The percentages of the flood disaster zones in (a) 1973 and (b) 2008 falling into the flood hazard levels (1-Lowest; 2-Low; 3-Moderate; 4-High; 5-Highest).

10
Y. Chen
Fig. 8. Correlation between flood disaster zones in (a) 1973 and (b) 2008 and flood hazard levels (1-Lowest; 2-Low; 3-Moderate; 4-High; 5-Highest).
problems by reducing complex decisions to a series of pairwise com­
parisons (Arabameri et al., 2019). By hierarchically formulating issues,
using pairwise comparison and expert knowledge to determine the
criteria weights for flood hazard mapping, AHP makes the assessment of
the contribution of each factor easier and overcomes problems such as
overlapping and interrelation between factors (Stefanidis and Stathis,
2013). Moreover, AHP can effectively check the consistency and
robustness of the decision maker’s evaluation, thereby decreasing the
bias in the decision-making process and increasing the reliability of the
resultant AHP, TOPSIS and OWA hazard map outputs.
There are more analysis steps and additional works on the criteria
involved in the TOPSIS method as compared to AHP, requiring a
comparatively longer processing time for hazard map generation
(Nyimbili et al., 2018). TOPSIS method had rarely been utilized in flood
hazard mapping. Its main advantage is that it does not need flood in­
ventory maps and is very useful and efficient in areas where data about
flood events in the past are not available. TOPSIS technique is intuitive
and easy-to-implement, dispenses with a few difficulties connected with
interdependency among attributes, and is able to change the input data
and analysis the system response to these changes. Hence, its extension
and application are suitable for this study.
For the OWA model, its main advantages include: (1) specifying risk
preferences of decision-makers by integrating the OWA operator with
linguistic quantifiers to obtain various sets of order weight, other than
by using numbers and equations (Moradi et al., 2015); and (2) intro­
ducing the operator parameter α as a key factor into the decision pro­
cess, based on which, decision-makers can control the magnitude of
decision risk along the continuum ranging from the pessimistic to
optimistic decision strategies. Hence, nine distinct decision strategies for
flood hazard mapping in the Dadu River basin between two extreme
cases of optimistic and pessimistic can be derived.
The flood hazard maps generated from AHP, TOPSIS and OWA
methods are comparable, which illustrates their usability of being basic
maps by decision-makers to provide effective information for flood risk
assessment and disaster mitigation planning in the study area. However,
the reliability of outputs may be limited by considering the availability,
accuracy and up-to-datedness of the input data.
In the future, for more targeted studies, the discussed GIS-MCA
framework can be upgraded and improved by incorporating more data
layers describing the factors with spatiotemporal attribute parameters.
6. Conclusion
In the face of the current frequent and severe flood hazard events, it
is imperative to increase the scientific foundation for disaster risk
management. Identification and zonation of watershed floods can be
11
Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268
effective in flood management, via supporting controlling floods and
thus reducing disaster damages. This leads to the increasing need for the
development and integration of scientific approaches. A range of
methods has been used for simulating disaster effects via visualization
for easier interpretation of outputs in the form of hazard maps.
Flood hazard maps are widely used in flood management studies.
The study describes the integration application of GIS and three MCA
techniques, AHP, TOPSIS, and OWA for mapping the flood hazard in the
Dadu River basin. Total eleven flood hazard maps with a hazard rating
level scale from lowest to highest were generated, compared, and
analyzed in terms of the distribution pattern of the areas at hazard across
the river basin.
This is the first application of TOPSIS and OWA to flood hazard
mapping of the Dadu River basin, the resultant hazard maps are similar
to that derived from the AHP method, which can consolidate the MCA
techniques in flood risk management, shows significant potential in the
future due to its numerous advantages, especially the applicability for
areas where there is a shortage of flood inventory data, and can be easily
extended and applied to other watersheds. The generated flood hazard
zone maps provide accessible hazard level information for decision-
makers to classify the most at-hazard areas and make optimal flood
management strategies with limited resources.
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.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Sichuan Science and Technology
Program [Grant No. 2019YFH0140]; International Visiting Program for
Excellent Young Scholars of SCU; the National Natural Science Foun­
dation of China [Grant No. 41501554]; and National Basic Research
Program of China [Grant No. 2013CB036401].
References
Ahmed, B., 2015. Landslide susceptibility mapping using multi-criteria evaluation
techniques in Chittagong Metropolitan Area, Bangladesh. Landslides 12, 1077–1095.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-014-0521-x.
Akgun, A., Dag, S., Bulut, F., 2007. Landslide susceptibility mapping for a landslide-
prone area (Findikli, NE of Turkey) by likelihood-frequency ratio and weighted
linear combination models. Environ. Geol. 54, 1127–1143.
Alaghmand, S., Abdullah, R. Bin, Abustan, I., Vosoogh, B., 2010. GIS-based river flood
hazard mapping in urban area (a case study in Kayu Ara river basin, Malaysia). Int. J.
Eng. Technol. 2, 488–500.
Y. Chen
Arabameri, A., Rezaei, K., Cerdà, A., Conoscenti, C., Kalantari, Z., 2019. A comparison of
statistical methods and multi-criteria decision making to map flood hazard
susceptibility in Northern Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 660, 443–458. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.021.
Asare-Kyei, D., Forkuor, G., Venus, V., 2015. Modeling flood hazard zones at the sub-
district level with the rational model integrated with GIS and remote sensing
approaches. Water (Switzerland) 7, 3531–3564. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w7073531.
Chen, H., Ito, Y., Sawamukai, M., Tokunaga, T., 2015. Flood hazard assessment in the
kujukuri plain of Chiba prefecture, Japan, based on GIS and multicriteria decision
analysis. Nat. Hazards 78, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1699-5.
Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, 1981. Atlas of Drought and Flood
Distribution in China in the last 500 Years. Sinomap press, Beijing.
Dahri, N., Abida, H., 2017. Monte Carlo simulation-aided analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) for flood susceptibility mapping in Gabes Basin (southeastern Tunisia).
Environ. Earth Sci. 76, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6619-4.
De Brito, M.M., Evers, M., 2016. Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk
management: A survey of the current state of the art. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
16, 1019–1033. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1019-2016.
De Moel, H., Van Alphen, J., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2009. Flood maps in Europe - Methods,
availability and use. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 289–301. https://doi.org/
10.5194/nhess-9-289-2009.
Elkhrachy, I., 2015. Flash Flood Hazard Mapping Using Satellite Images and GIS Tools: A
case study of Najran City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Sp.
Sci. 18, 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2015.06.007.
Fernández, D.S., Lutz, M.A., 2010. Urban flood hazard zoning in Tucumán Province,
Argentina, using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Eng. Geol. 111, 90–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.12.006.
Gaume, E., Bain, V., Bernardara, P., Newinger, O., Barbuc, M., Bateman, A.,
Blaškovičová, L., Blöschl, G., Borga, M., Dumitrescu, A., Daliakopoulos, I., Garcia, J.,
Irimescu, A., Kohnova, S., Koutroulis, A., Marchi, L., Matreata, S., Medina, V.,
Preciso, E., Sempere-Torres, D., Stancalie, G., Szolgay, J., Tsanis, I., Velasco, D.,
Viglione, A., 2009. A compilation of data on European flash floods. J. Hydrol. 367,
70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.12.028.
Ghaffari Gilandeh, A., Sobhani, B., Ostadi, E., 2020. Combining Arc-GIS and OWA model
in flooding potential analysis (case study: Meshkinshahr city). Nat. Hazards 102,
1435–1449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-03975-0.
Ghanbarpour, M.R., Salimi, S., Hipel, K.W., 2013. A comparative evaluation of flood
mitigation alternatives using GIS-based river hydraulics modelling and multicriteria
decision analysis. J. Flood Risk Manag. 6, 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jfr3.12017.
Gokceoglu, C., Sonmez, H., Nefeslioglu, H.A., Duman, T.Y., Can, T., 2005. The 17 March
2005 Kuzulu landslide (Sivas, Turkey) and landslide-susceptibility map of its near
vicinity. Eng. Geol. 81, 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.07.011.
Greiving, S., Fleischhauer, M., Wanczura, S., 2005. Report on the European scenario of
technological and scientific standards reached in spatial planning versus natural risk
management. Armon. Proj. 670.
Huang, L., Bai, J., Yan, D., Chen, B., Xiao, R., Gao, H., 2012. Changes of wetland
landscape patterns in Dadu River catchment from 1985 to 2000. China. Front. Earth
Sci. 6, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-012-0312-4.
Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K., 1981. Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making BT -
Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art
Survey, in: Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K. (Eds.), . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 58–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3.
Jozaghi, A., Alizadeh, B., Hatami, M., Flood, I., Khorrami, M., Khodaei, N., Tousi, E.G.,
2018. A comparative study of the AHP and TOPSIS techniques for dam site selection
using GIS: A case study of Sistan and Baluchestan Province. Iran. Geosci. 8, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8120494.
Kaliszewski, I., Podkopaev, D., 2016. Simple additive weighting - A metamodel for
multiple criteria decision analysis methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 54, 155–161. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.042.
Kazakis, N., Kougias, I., Patsialis, T., 2015. Assessment of flood hazard areas at a regional
scale using an index-based approach and Analytical Hierarchy Process: Application
in Rhodope-Evros region. Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 538, 555–563. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.055.
Khosravi, K., Pourghasemi, H.R., Chapi, K., Bahri, M., 2016. Flash flood susceptibility
analysis and its mapping using different bivariate models in Iran: a comparison
between Shannon’s entropy, statistical index, and weighting factor models. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 188 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5665-9.
Khosravi, K., Shahabi, H., Pham, B.T., Adamowski, J., Shirzadi, A., Pradhan, B., Dou, J.,
Ly, H.B., Gróf, G., Ho, H.L., Hong, H., Chapi, K., Prakash, I., 2019. A comparative
assessment of flood susceptibility modeling using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
Analysis and Machine Learning Methods. J. Hydrol. 573, 311–323. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.073.
Kiavarz, M., Jelokhani-Niaraki, M., 2017. Geothermal prospectivity mapping using GIS-
based Ordered Weighted Averaging approach: A case study in Japan’s Akita and
Iwate provinces. Geothermics 70, 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2017.06.015.
Kourgialas, N.N., Karatzas, G.P., 2011. Flood management and a GIS modelling method
to assess flood-hazard areas—a case study. Hydrol. Sci. J. 56, 212–225. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02626667.2011.555836.
Kourgialas, N.N., Karatzas, G.P., 2016. A flood risk decision making approach for
Mediterranean tree crops using GIS; climate change effects and flood-tolerant
species. Environ. Sci. Policy 63, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2016.05.020.
12
Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268
Kourgialas, N.N., Karatzas, G.P., 2017. A national scale flood hazard mapping
methodology: The case of Greece – Protection and adaptation policy approaches. Sci.
Total Environ. 601–602, 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.05.197.
Luu, C., Von Meding, J., Kanjanabootra, S., 2018. Assessing flood hazard using flood
marks and analytic hierarchy process approach: a case study for the 2013 flood event
in Quang Nam. Vietnam. Nat. Hazards 90, 1031–1050. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-017-3083-0.
Luu, C., von Meding, J., Mojtahedi, M., 2019. Analyzing Vietnam’s national disaster loss
database for flood risk assessment using multiple linear regression-TOPSIS. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. 40, 101153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101153.
Mahmoody Vanolya, N., Jelokhani-Niaraki, M., 2021. The use of subjective–objective
weights in GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for flood hazard assessment: a
case study in Mazandaran. Iran. GeoJournal 86, 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10708-019-10075-5.
Malczewski, J., 2006. GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: A survey of the
literature. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 20, 703–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13658810600661508.
Malczewski, J., Chapman, T., Flegel, C., Walters, D., Shrubsole, D., Healy, M.A., 2003.
GIS multicriteria evaluation with ordered weighted averaging (OWA): Case study of
developing watershed management strategies. Environ. Plan. A 35, 1769–1784.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a35156.
Milani, A.S., Shanian, A., Madoliat, R., Nemes, J.A., 2005. The effect of normalization
norms in multiple attribute decision making models: A case study in gear material
selection. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 29, 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-
004-0473-1.
Mojtahedi, S.M.H., Oo, B.L., 2016. Coastal buildings and infrastructure flood risk
analysis using multi-attribute decision-making. J. Flood Risk Manag. 9, 87–96.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12120.
Moradi, M., Delavar, M.R., Moshiri, B., 2015. A GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making
approach for seismic vulnerability assessment using quantifier-guided OWA
operator: a case study of Tehran. Iran. Ann. GIS 21, 209–222. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19475683.2014.966858.
Nefeslioglu, H.A., Sezer, E.A., Gokceoglu, C., Ayas, Z., 2013. A modified analytical
hierarchy process (M-AHP) approach for decision support systems in natural hazard
assessments. Comput. Geosci. 59, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cageo.2013.05.010.
Nyimbili, P.H., Erden, T., Karaman, H., 2018. Integration of GIS, AHP and TOPSIS for
earthquake hazard analysis. Nat. Hazards 92, 1523–1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-018-3262-7.
Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int. J. Serv. Sci.
1, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590.
Sahana, M., Patel, P.P., 2019. A comparison of frequency ratio and fuzzy logic models for
flood susceptibility assessment of the lower Kosi River Basin in India. Environ. Earth
Sci. 78, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8285-1.
Sahana, M., Rehman, S., Sajjad, H., Hong, H., 2020. Exploring effectiveness of frequency
ratio and support vector machine models in storm surge flood susceptibility
assessment: A study of Sundarban Biosphere Reserve. India. Catena 189. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104450.
Sanyal, J., Lu, X.X., 2006. GIS-based flood hazard mapping at different administrative
scales: A case study in Gangetic West Bengal. India. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 27,
207–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2006.00254.x.
Sepehri, M., Malekinezhad, H., Hosseini, S.Z., Ildoromi, A.R., 2019. Assessment of flood
hazard mapping in urban areas using entropy weighting method: a case study in
Hamadan city. Iran. Acta Geophys. 67, 1435–1449. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11600-019-00342-x.
Shao, H., Sun, X., Tao, S., Xiang, Z., Xian, W., 2015. Environmental vulnerability
assessment in middle-upper reaches of Dadu River Watershed using Projection
Pursuit Model and gis. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 10, 143–146.
Shared Platform Data Production Group, 2006. Distribution of droughts and floods in
China (1871-1977). National Earth System Science Data Center.
Shorabeh, S.N., Firozjaei, M.K., Nematollahi, O., Firozjaei, H.K., Jelokhani-Niaraki, M.,
2019. A risk-based multi-criteria spatial decision analysis for solar power plant site
selection in different climates: A case study in Iran. Renew. Energy 143, 958–973.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.063.
Sinha, R., Bapalu, G.V., Singh, L.K., Rath, B., 2008. Flood risk analysis in the Kosi river
basin, north Bihar using multi-parametric approach of Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP). J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 36 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-008-0034-y.
Stefanidis, S., Stathis, D., 2013. Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and
anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Nat. Hazards 68,
569–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0639-5.
Talukdar, S., Ghose, B., Shahfahad, Salam, R., Mahato, S., Pham, Q.B., Linh, N.T.T.,
Costache, R., Avand, M., 2020. Flood susceptibility modeling in Teesta River basin,
Bangladesh using novel ensembles of bagging algorithms. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk
Assess. 34, 2277–2300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01862-5.
Tang, Z., Zhang, H., Yi, S., Xiao, Y., 2018. Assessment of flood susceptible areas using
spatially explicit, probabilistic multi-criteria decision analysis. J. Hydrol. 558,
144–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.033.
Toosi, A., Calbimonte, G.H., Nouri, H., Alaghmand, S., 2019. River basin-scale flood
hazard assessment using a modified multi-criteria decision analysis approach: A case
study. J. Hydrol. 574 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.072.
Wang, Z., Lai, C., Chen, X., Yang, B., Zhao, S., Bai, X., 2015. Flood hazard risk assessment
model based on random forest. J. Hydrol. 527, 1130–1141. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.008.
Wind, Y., Saaty, T.L., 1980. Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Manage, Sci.
Y. Chen
Xiao, Z., 2009. Yearbook of Meteorological Disasters in China. China meteorological
administration, Beijing.
Xiao, Y., Yi, S., Tang, Z., 2017. Integrated flood hazard assessment based on spatial
ordered weighted averaging method considering spatial heterogeneity of risk
preference. Sci. Total Environ. 599–600, 1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.04.218.
13
Journal of Hydrology 612 (2022) 128268
Xu, H., Ma, C., Lian, J., Xu, K., Chaima, E., 2018. Urban flooding risk assessment based
on an integrated k-means cluster algorithm and improved entropy weight method in
the region of Haikou. China. J. Hydrol. 563, 975–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2018.06.060.
Yager, R.R., 1988. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria
decisionmaking. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 18, 183–190. https://doi.org/
10.1109/21.87068.