Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tgnh20

Flood hazard analysis and risk assessment using

remote sensing, GIS, and AHP techniques: a case
study of the Gidabo Watershed, main Ethiopian
Rift, Ethiopia

Dechasa Diriba, Tariku Takele, Shankar Karuppannan & Musa Husein

To cite this article: Dechasa Diriba, Tariku Takele, Shankar Karuppannan & Musa Husein (2024)
Flood hazard analysis and risk assessment using remote sensing, GIS, and AHP techniques: a
case study of the Gidabo Watershed, main Ethiopian Rift, Ethiopia, Geomatics, Natural Hazards
and Risk, 15:1, 2361813, DOI: 10.1080/19475705.2024.2361813

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2024.2361813

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 22 Jun 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 413

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgnh20
GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK
2024, VOL. 15, NO. 1, 2361813
https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2024.2361813

Flood hazard analysis and risk assessment using remote

sensing, GIS, and AHP techniques: a case study of the
Gidabo Watershed, main Ethiopian Rift, Ethiopia
Dechasa Diribaa, Tariku Takelea, Shankar Karuppannanb,c and Musa Huseina
a
Department of Geology, College of Natural and Computational Science, Dilla University, Dilla,
Ethiopia; bDepartment of Applied Geology, School of Applied Natural Science, Adama Science and
Technology University, Adama, Ethiopia; cDepartment of Research Analytics, Saveetha Dental College
and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This research aimed to evaluate flood hazards and risk areas in Received 15 November 2023
the Gidabo Watershed using remote sensing (RS), Geographic Accepted 25 May 2024
Information Systems (GIS), and analytical hierarchy process (AHP).
KEYWORDS
Six main factors were considered to identify flooding hazard
AHP; flood hazard; Gidabo
zones: drainage density (DD), soil, elevation, rainfall, slope, and watershed; GIS; remote
land use land cover (LULC). Population density, flood hazard zone, sensing; risk
and LULC were considered for mapping the flood risk zone in the
Gidabo watershed. A weighted overlay analysis tool has been uti­
lized to integrate the thematic layers to identify both flood hazard
and flood risk zones. The findings indicated that about 41.6%
(337 km2) of the watershed falls within the high and very high
flooding hazard zones. Conversely, 31.11% (252 km2) of the water­
shed is categorized under very-low and low flooding hazards.
Moreover, the study identified five flood risk zones in the area viz;
very high, high, moderate, low, and very low. The result of the
flood risk map revealed that 199.5 km2 (24.5%) of the watershed
has a higher and very higher risk of flooding. These zones were
validated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve,
showing a correlation coefficient of 0.943. These results empha­
size the need to implement prediction of floods, early warning
systems, and effective management practices on a regular and
sustainable basis.

1. Introduction
Floods are incredibly destructive natural disasters that occur in both rural and urban
areas, causing extensive damage to people, livelihoods, and infrastructure (Chen et al.
2009; Fern�andez and Lutz 2010). The frequency of flood events has significantly

CONTACT Shankar Karuppannan geoshankar1984@gmail.com;; Dechasa Diriba dachassa21@gmail.com

� 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the
Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 D. DIRIBA ET AL.

increased globally over the past three decades (Hdeib et al. 2018; Vishnu et al. 2019;
Sajinkumar et al. 2022). The rise in global flooding is attributed to various factors,
such as changes in rainfall patterns, an increase in extreme weather events, alterations
in land use, and population growth (Sarmah and Das 2018). Additionally, rapid
urbanization without proper spatial planning has resulted in the occupation of unsuit­
able areas, including river banks and floodplains, which are prone to flooding
(Tsakiris 2014).
The proliferation of artificial surfaces can significantly impact runoff characteris­
tics, leading to an increase in submerged areas during floods. This alteration in nat­
ural processes poses a particular challenge for developing countries, which often have
limited resources for recovery and repairs in the aftermath of natural disasters
(Allafta and Opp 2021). Ethiopia, in particular, has been grappling with the recurring
issue of floods, which profoundly impact both lives and livelihoods (Nigusse and
Adhanom 2019). Floods in the country primarily occur in floodplains, where most
rainfall occurs during the wet months (Dadi and Gumi 2020; Melkamu et al. 2022).
In recent years, Ethiopia experienced a devastating flash flood in the countryside,
resulting in extensive damage to infrastructure and agriculture, as well as tragic loss
of life (Desalegn and Mulu 2020). While it may not be possible to prevent these haz­
ards entirely, implementing appropriate mitigation measures can help reduce the
severity of the disaster and its consequences. Therefore, it is crucial to address these
challenges and find sustainable solutions to mitigate the impact of floods in the coun­
try, protect communities, and minimize the destruction caused by these natural
disasters.
Various methods have been utilized in different parts of the world to identify flood
hazards and risk zones. These include hydrodynamic modeling (Liu et al. 2012),
hydrological and hydrodynamic models (Ullah et al. 2016), Artificial Neural Network
(ANN) (Dixon 2005; Kia et al. 2012; Rahmati et al. 2016), multi-criteria decision ana­
lysis (MCDA) (Nigusse and Adhanom 2019; Feloni et al. 2020), and analytical hier­
archy process (AHP) (Chakraborty and Mukhopadhyay 2019; Goumrasa et al. 2021;
Ikirri et al. 2022; Burayu et al. 2023; Mokhtari et al. 2023; Nair et al. 2023; Senan
et al. 2023). These approaches were employed to assess and understand the potential
risks associated with flooding.
Geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing (RS) technologies offer
quick access to satellite data and efficient management of large amounts of data to
identify different indicators across various dimensions (Chen et al. 2015; Tehrany
et al. 2015; Melkamu et al. 2022). These technologies have become commonly used in
investigating multi-dimensional issues like mapping areas prone to flood-related
problems, considering both spatial and temporal dimensions (Santos et al. 2017). To
address the vulnerability of certain areas to flooding, an integrated approach combin­
ing RS and GIS can be employed (Moazzam et al. 2018; Twumasi et al. 2020; Raufu
et al. 2023).
In Ethiopia, some scholars have conducted studies on flood hazards, vulnerability,
and risk analysis using geospatial technologies like RS and GIS techniques. For
instance, studies conducted in Lower Awash Sub-basin, Ethiopia (Wondim 2016),
Ambo Town and its watershed, West shoa zone, Oromia regional State, Ethiopia
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 3

(Ogato et al. 2020), Around Adigrat, Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia (Nigusse and
Adhanom 2019), Fetam watershed, upper Abbay basin, Ethiopia (Desalegn and Mulu
2020), Southern Oromia region (Burayu et al. 2023) and Jimma City, southwestern
Ethiopia (Weday et al. 2023), and upper Awash River basin, Ethiopia (Hagos et al.
2022) are a few studies examined flood-prone areas in the country.
The Gidabo watershed within the Rift Valley basin has experienced recurrent
flooding, leading to significant economic losses and impacting numerous individuals.
Despite the lack of previous investigations on flood hazards and risk zones in the
Gidabo watershed, this study aims to fill that gap by specifically focusing on this
area. Therefore, the objective of this study is to utilize GIS, RS, and AHP techniques
to detect flood hazards and zones of risk in the Gidabo watershed. To attain this
objective, thematic layers of criterion that influence flood hazard and risk, such as
drainage density, rainfall, elevation, soil, land use land cover (LULC), slope, and
population density, were considered in this study. The flood hazard and risk zone
were generated using weight overlay analysis. This study will be useful for decision-
makers and managers in designing early warning systems and flood hazard reduction
measures.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Study area description
The area of research is situated in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia, covering approximately
809.9 km2. It is bounded by Oromia, Sidama, and Southern Nations & Nationalities
Peoples (SNNP) regional states and eight different districts like Aleta wondo, Chuko,
Dera, Dilla zuria, Wenago, Abaya, Hula, and Bule. The coordinates of the area range
from 6� 100 3000 to 6� 360 0000 N and 38� 100 0000 to 38� 320 0000 E (Figure 1). The
watershed elevation varies from 1210 to 3032 m above sea level. Various LULC types
can be found within the study area, including wetlands, barren land, agroforestry,
built-up areas, agricultural land, and scrub forests. The dominant LULC type in the
watershed is scrub forest, covering an area of 343.3 km2 (42.4%), followed by agrofor­
estry with a coverage of 229.1 km2 (28.29%). Agricultural land occupies 128.35 km2
(15.8%) of the watershed, while built-up areas cover 69.4 km2 (8.6%). Barren land
accounts for 38.8 km2 (4.8%), and the wetland covers 0.95 km2 (0.11%) of the
watershed.

2.2. Data
Different data are collected from various sources to achieve the research objective.
For instance, SRTM DEM (30 � 30 m resolution) and Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS (30 � 30 m
resolution) were downloaded from the US Geological Survey (https://earthexplorer.
usgs.gov/). The rainfall data, with higher-resolution gridded data, 0.5� �0.5� , was
attained from Climatic Research Unit gridded time series version 4 (https://crudata.
uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/cru_ts_4.06/). Soil data was attained from the Ministry of
Water, Irrigation, and Energy.
4 D. DIRIBA ET AL.

Figure 1. Study area map.

2.3. Methods of analysis

To assess the flood hazard zone in the Gidabo watershed, researchers examined six
key factors: soil type, rainfall, slope, elevation, drainage density, and LULC. These fac­
tors were selected based on a literature review (Desalegn and Mulu 2020; Ogato et al.
2020) and expert input. To analyze the data, all thematic layers (slope, elevation, rain­
fall, LULC, drainage density, and soil types) were converted into raster format using
the rasterization conversion tool in ArcGIS. These raster maps were then projected
into the UTM zone 37 WGS 84. The factors were categorized into sub-factors accord­
ing to their susceptibility to flood hazards. Classes were assigned ranks 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5 (representing very low, low, moderate, high, and very high vulnerability) (Allafta
and Opp 2021). A weighted overlay technique combined all the parameters and gen­
erated the flood hazard zone. Three controlling factors have been considered to iden­
tify the risk zone of flood of the watershed: population density, LULC, and the layer
of flood hazard. The overall methodology used in this research is summarized in
Figure 2.

2.3.1. Factors controlling flood hazard

Slope: Gradient plays a crucial role in determining the water flow speed and duration.
On flatter surfaces, water moves more slowly and stays longer, making these types of
areas much more prone to flooding than steeper surfaces (Gigovi�c et al. 2017; Rimba
et al. 2017). The slope layer of the area was created using SRTM DEM in ArcGIS and
ranged from 0 to 64 degrees (Figure 3a). The slopes are categorized into five groups
and ranked on the basis of their vulnerability to flooding hazards. Lower slope values
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 5

Figure 2. Methodology flowchart.

indicate flat terrain highly susceptible to flooding, while values of higher slope point
toward steeper terrain less vulnerable to flooding (Hagos et al. 2022). The category
with the lowest slope value (0–11), ranked at 5, indicates a much higher susceptibility
to flooding hazards, though the category with the highest slope value (46–64), ranked
at 1, indicates a very low susceptibility (Table 1).
6 D. DIRIBA ET AL.

Figure 3. Slope (a), elevation (b), rainfall (c), LULC (d), drainage density (e), and soil map (f).
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 7

Table 1. Susceptibility level of sub-factors to flood hazard.

Susceptibility level of sub-factors to flood hazard
1 2 3 4 5
Factors Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Slope 46–64 34–46 22–34 11–22 0–11
Elevation 2909–3032 2710–2908 2404–2709 2102–2403 1210–2101
Rainfall <1060 1060–1090 1090–1120 1120–1150 >1150
LULC Agroforest Scrub forest Agricultural land Built-up and barren land Wetland
Drainage density 47.6–55.6 42.3–47.5 35–42.2 26.4–34.9 8.8–26.3
Soil type EC EN, DG, & DN CL & OA CF PV & CV
Note: EC -eutric cambisols, OA - orthic acrisols, PV – pellic vertisols, CV - chromic vertisols; DG - dystric gleysols,
CF - calcic fluvisols, DN - dystric nitisols, CL - chromic luvisols, EN - eutric nitisols.

Elevation: Elevation plays an essential role in controlling the direction and depth
of water levels during overflow (Gigovi�c et al. 2017). The ArcGIS environment and
DEM are utilized to create elevation raster layers. The elevation range varies from
1210 to 3032 and is manually categorized into five classes based on the opinion of an
expert: very lower (1210–2101), lower (2102–2403), moderate (2404–2709), higher
(2710–1908), and very higher (2909–3032) (Figure 3b). Higher elevations experience
less flooding, while lower elevations are more susceptible to flooding hazards
(Wondim 2016). To assess the susceptibility of elevation to flood hazards, they are
also classified into five classes and ranked accordingly. The category for lowest eleva­
tion is ranked as 5, indicating a very high susceptibility to flooding, though the high­
est elevation is ranked as 1, indicating a very low susceptibility (Table 1).
Rainfall: Rainfall is one of the main causes that trigger floods (Lappas and Kallioras
2019; Hidayah et al. 2022). To develop the rainfall map, the rainfall layer of the water­
shed was generated using high-resolution gridded data with a resolution of 0.5� � 0.5� .
The map has been formed by utilizing an inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation
approach in ArcGIS (Figure 3c). The amount of rainfall directly affects the runoff that
leads to flooding. Therefore, the more rainfall, the more the potential for flooding, and
vice versa (Gazi et al. 2019). Accordingly, the highest annual rainfall (>1150) is given a
rank of ‘50 as it is more susceptible to flood hazards, while the lowest annual rainfall
(<1060) is assigned the lowest score of ‘10 (Table 1).
LULC: Understanding LULC is crucial for assessing surface runoff and potential
flooding in a particular catchment (Khosravi et al. 2018; Areu-Rangel et al. 2019). To
determine the LULC of the Gidabo watershed, Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS imagery was used,
and a supervised classification method in ERDAS Imagine 2015 was applied. Different
types of land use affect the rate of infiltration, with vegetated areas promoting infiltra­
tion, while residential and pasture areas hinder infiltration due to their impervious
cover, leading to increased runoff and a higher risk of flooding (Athick et al. 2019;
Athick and Shankar 2019; Lappas and Kallioras 2019). The study identified six LULCs
in the area: built-up areas, agroforestry, agricultural land, wetland, barren land, and
scrub forest (Figure 3d). These LULCs were further classified into five categories on the
basis of their susceptibility to flood hazards, as shown in Table 1.
Drainage density: The drainage density of the watershed was determined using
SRTM DEM in a GIS environment. It ranged from 8.83 to 55.6 km/km2 and was divided
into five categories: very low (8.8–26.3), low (26.4–34.9 km/km2), moderate (35–
42.2 km/km2), high (42.3–47.5 km/km2), and very high (47.6–55.6 km/km2) (Figure 3e).
8 D. DIRIBA ET AL.

A higher drainage density suggests a greater runoff for the basin area, along with the
erodible geologic materials, and a lower risk of flooding. Therefore, the rating for the
density of drainage reduces as the drainage density rises (Raufu et al. 2023).
Consequently, the drainage density at the lowest is ranked as 5, indicating the highest
susceptibility to flood hazards, while the drainage density at the highest is ranked as 1,
indicating a very low susceptibility to flood hazards (Table 1).
Soil type: The study area identifies nine primary soil classifications based on the
Ethiopian Ministry of Water, Irrigation, and Energy’s hydrologic soil-grouping
method. These include electric cambisols, acrisols, pellic vertisols, chromic vertisols,
dystric gleysols, calcic fluvisols, dystric nitisols, chromic luvisols, and eutric nitisols
(Figure 3f). When the soil’s ability to absorb water decreases, the risk of flooding
increases. This leads to an increase in surface runoff when rainfall surpasses the cap­
acity of soil to absorb it (Ouma and Tateishi 2014; Lei et al. 2020; Kamaraj et al.
2024). The soil characteristics such as infiltration and permeability rate directly affect
the rainfall, turning into runoff (Rimba et al. 2017). To assess the susceptibility of the
soil types to flooding, they were categorized into five classes. Pellic vertisols and chro­
mic vertisols were assigned the highest weight of ‘50 , while eutric cambisols received
the lowest weight of ‘10 (Table 1).

2.3.2. Factors controlling flood risk

Population density: In order to determine the individuals’ number per sq km in the
watershed, the gross population density calculation method is used. For this study,
the human population estimation for the year 2020 in the watershed was taken into
account (Figure 4). The density has been reclassified to assess the population’s

Figure 4. Population density map.

 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 9

vulnerability to flood hazards based on the assumption that a higher population dens­
ity indicates higher susceptibility (Wondim 2016). The highest population density cat­
egory ranked at a value of 5, is considered very susceptible to flooding risk.
Conversely, the lowest population density category, ranked at a value of 1, has a very
lower susceptibility to flood risk (Table 4).
Flood hazard zone: In the Gidabo watershed, flooding hazards were seen as one of
the factors that increase the risk of flooding. To better understand this, the flood haz­
ard zones (Figure 5) were categorized according to their vulnerability to flooding risk.
The layer with a very high flood hazard was given a ranking of 5, indicating its high
susceptibility to risk of flooding. Conversely, the layer with a very low flooding haz­
ard has been ranked 1, indicating its low susceptibility to flooding risk (Table 4).
LULC: To analyze the risk of flooding in the area, the different land use classes,
such as wetland, built-up, farmland, barren land, agricultural land, scrub forest, and
agroforestry (Figure 3d), were grouped based on their vulnerability to flooding. A
common scale was used to reclassify the types of land use in the sub-basin according
to their sensitivity to flood risk (Table 4).

2.3.3. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)

Pairwise comparison matrix: AHP is a decision-making approach that considers mul­
tiple objectives and criteria (Wind and Saaty 1980). It uses a pairwise comparison pro­
cedure to determine preferences among different options. AHP quantifies individual
preferences or judgments using absolute numbers on a scale. This method has been
widely employed in flood hazard mapping and assessments, yielding valuable results
(Mokhtari et al. 2023). AHP method calculates the relative importance of two factors on
a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 9 (Wind and Saaty 1980). The scale represents dif­
ferent levels of importance, with 1 indicating equal importance and 9 signifying extreme
importance. Intermediate values can be assigned using 2, 4, 6, and 8. To illustrate the
comparisons, Table 2 presents the matrix of parameter comparisons.
The pairwise comparison matrix (PCM)-generated weight is normalized using AHP, as
shown in Table 3. The results reveal that slope is the most influential factor, accounting

Table 2. Pairwise comparison matrix of parameters.

Factors Slope Elevation Rainfall LULC Drainage density Soil type
Slope 1 2 3 3 5 7
Elevation 1 2 3 3 5
Rainfall 1 2 3 4
LULC 1 2 3
Drainage density 1 2
Soil type 1

Table 3. Normalized weight of parameters.

Factors Slope Elevation Rainfall LULC Drainage density Soil type Weight Weight (%)
Slope 0.40 0.458 0.423 0.305 0.344 0.318 0.374 37.4
Elevation 0.20 0.229 0.282 0.305 0.206 0.227 0.241 24.1
Rainfall 0.132 0.114 0.141 0.203 0.206 0.181 0.162 16.2
LULC 0.132 0.075 0.070 0.101 0.137 0.136 0.108 10.8
Drainage density 0.08 0.075 0.046 0.050 0.068 0.090 0.068 6.8
Soil type 0.056 0.045 0.035 0.033 0.034 0.045 0.047 4.7
10 D. DIRIBA ET AL.

Table 4. Susceptibility level of sub-factors to flood risk.

Rank of sub-factors
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 Weight
Flood hazard layer Very low Low Moderate High Very high 0.3333
Population density 114–792 792–1566 1566–3405 3405–6647 6647–12454 0.3333
LULC Agroforest Scrub forest Agricultural land Built up & barren land Wetland 0.3333

for 37.4% of the overall influence. Elevation, rainfall, LULC, drainage density, and soil
types follow, with influences of 24.1%, 16.2%, 10.8%, 6.8%, and 4.7%, respectively.
Consistency checking: The consistency of normalized weights was assessed by finding
the consistency ratio (CR) (Wind and Saaty 1980). The consistency vector (k max) deter­
mines how much the matrix deviates from the consistency (Brunelli 2015). A PCM is con­
sidered consistent only while the k max is equal to or higher as compared to the factors
number being considered (six parameters in this research); otherwise, a new matrix must
be created. In this study, the k max was calculated using Equation (1) and obtained a value
of 6.08, deemed acceptable. The consistency index (CI) was computed using Equation (2)
and yielded an outcome of 0.016. The CR was computed using Equation (3) and generated
a value of 0.012, indicating a suitable level of consistency (Wind and Saaty 1980).
X
k max ¼ ðCij � XijÞ (1)

Where: Cij - the number assigned to each factor at ith row & jth column in the
pairwise comparison matrix, Xij - the value at ith row & jth column in the normalized
weight matrix

k-n
CI ¼ (2)
n−1

Where: n-number of parameters considered.

CI
CR ¼ (3)
RI

Where: RI - the randomized index (1.24, for the current study)

2.3.4. Flood hazard and flood risk index

A weighted overlay analysis method was utilized to create a flood hazard map for
the Gidabo watershed. This involved determining the weight of each factor, such as
slope, elevation, rainfall, LULC, drainage density, and soil type. The flood hazard
index (FHI) was calculated using these factors and their respective weights using
Equation (4) (Wind and Saaty 1980).

FHIðFlood hazard indexÞ ¼ Slope � ð0:374Þ þ elevation � ð0:241Þ þ rainfall � ð0:162Þ

þLULC � ð0:108Þ þ drainage density � ð0:068Þ þ soil type � ð0:047Þ
(4)
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 11

Based on the FHI values, the flood hazard in the Gidabo watershed was catego­
rized into five zones: very high, higher, moderate, lower, and very low (Figure 5).
To determine the flood risk in the Gidabo watershed, we considered three factors:
flood hazard, density of population, and LULC. These factors were given equal
importance in the weighted overlay process (Ogato et al. 2020). The Flooding Risk
Index (FRI) was calculated using Equation (5) (Wind and Saaty 1980):

FRIðFlooding risk IndexÞ ¼ 0:3333 � LULC þ 0:3333 � (5)

�flood hazard þ 0:3333 � population density individual=km2

The resulting FRI values were then classified into five risk zones ranging from very
low to very high (Figure 6). We compared the accuracy of the flood risk map with
data collected from actual flooding sites to validate it. A receiver operating character­
istic (ROC) curve and an area under the curve (AUC) are commonly used to validate
flood susceptibility maps (Siahkamari et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2019). This method
allows for the calculation of the prediction accuracy through the AUC. The AUC
value is calculated using Equation (6) (Wang et al. 2019).
P P
TP þ TN
AUC ¼ (6)
PþN

Where TP and TN represent the correctly and incorrectly classified flood occur­
rences, and P and N represent the total number of flood and non-flood occurrences,
respectively.

Figure 5. Flood hazard zone map.

12 D. DIRIBA ET AL.

Figure 6. Flood risk map.

Table 5. Area coverage of the flood hazard zone.

Flood hazard zone Area (km2) Percent
Very low 89.6 11.06
Low 162.4 20.05
Moderate 220.9 27.27
High 213.7 26.38
Very high 123.3 15.22

3. Results
3.1. Flood hazard zone of Gidabo Watershed
The Gidabo watershed flood hazard map categorized different areas based on their
flood susceptibility level. About 15.22% (123.3 km2) of the area was categorized as a
very high flood hazard zone, while 26.38% (213.7 km2) was considered high, 27.27%
(220.9 km2) as moderate, 20.05% (162.4 km2) as low, and 11.06% (89.6 km2) as very
low (Table 5). This showed that approximately 41.6% (337 km2) of the area had
higher to very high flood hazards. These zones have been primarily concentrated in
the western, northwestern, and some parts of the central area (Figure 5). The areas
with moderate flood hazard zones frequently characterized the eastern, northeastern,
southwestern, central parts, and some parts of the western watershed. On the other
hand, about 31.11% (252 km2) of the area had very low to low flood hazards. These
zones are mostly located in the southern, south-eastern, south-central, and some parts
of the eastern regions.
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 13

3.2. Flood risk zone of Gidabo watershed

The resulting flood risk index divided the Gidabo watershed into five zones, ranging
from very low to very high risk (Figure 6). The findings revealed the following flood
risk zones: very low 146.9 km2 (18.1%), low 230.7 km2 (28.4%), moderate 232.8 km2
(29%), high 173.2 km2 (21.3%), and very high 26.3 km2 (3.2%) across the entire water­
shed (Figure 7 and Table 6). Approximately 199.5 km2 (24.5%) of the area has been
identified as having a higher to very higher flood risk. Notably, the western part of
the watershed falls under the high flood risk zone. Based on the spatial study find­
ings, specific towns such as Dilla, Gebado, Chichi, Wonago, and Teferi Keta are more
susceptible to very high flood risks. Conversely, areas like Agamesa, Kochera
Cheraka, Weto, Wetiku, Hasemo, and Shekusa Kebele demonstrate lower vulnerability
to flood risk.

3.3. Validation of flood risk zone

Model validation systematically compares a model’s results with real-world observa­
tions to determine how well the model represents reality. Researchers use various
models to assess the vulnerability of floods in different areas, but it is important to
test the accuracy of these models by comparing them to actual data. In the case of
the Gidabo watershed flood risk map, the model’s output was validated by comparing
it to data from 32 flooding sites collected during a field survey. These sites were over­
laid on the model’s output (Figure 8), and the ROC curve method was utilized to cal­
culate the AUC value. The resulting AUC is 0.943 (94.3%), indicating an accurate
prediction for the flood risk map. Overall, it has been determined that utilizing an

Figure 7. Flood risk zone area coverage in percentage.

Table 6. Area coverage of flood risk.

Flood risk zone Area (km2) Percent
Very low 146.9 18.1
Low 230.7 28.4
Moderate 232.8 29
High 173.2 21.3
Very high 26.3 3.2
14 D. DIRIBA ET AL.

integrated approach of RS, GIS, and AHP yields reliable results when forecasting
flood risk.

4. Discussion
The integration of GIS, and RS a cost-effective and efficient tool for systematically
analyzing several surface features helpful in identifying flood susceptibility zones
(Twumasi et al. 2020; Goumrasa et al. 2021; Melkamu et al. 2022; Weday et al. 2023).
Floods occur frequently and have become a constant occurrence in Ethiopia’s flood­
plains and other areas receiving heavy rainfall. For sustainable economic develop­
ment, it is essential to analyze flood risk, making flood risk assessment a top priority
in the field of natural sciences (Wondim 2016). Remote sensing data significantly
contributes to locating flood susceptible zones (Desalegn and Mulu 2020; Hidayah
et al. 2023). The map of flood hazard zones was generated based on six factors (rain­
fall, drainage density, elevation, slope, soil type, and LULC). The weight of each fac­
tor was determined using AHP (Desalegn and Mulu 2020; Hagos et al. 2022).
According to the generated flood hazard map, very high and high zones are fre­
quently found in the watershed’s western, west-central, northern, and northwestern
parts. These very high and high zones are distinguished by their gentle slope, lower
elevation, lower drainage density, high rainfall, and specific soil types like pellic verti­
sols and chromic vertisols. Wetland, built-up, and barren land LULC types further
contributed to very high and high flooding in the watershed. The areas with very low
and low flooding hazards were mostly situated in the southern, south-central, and
central parts of the watershed and distinguished by their steep slopes, higher

Figure 8. Distribution of flooding risk sites.

 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 15

elevation, high drainage density, lower rainfall, agroforest and soil types of eutric
cambisols, which resulted in low infiltration and high runoff.
The flood risk map shows that very high flood risk is primarily concentrated in towns
like Dilla, Gebado, Chichi, Wonago, and Teferi Keta. This region with a very high flood
risk is distinguished by a very high population density, flooding, and built-up. The
majority of the western study area was categorized under a high flood risk zone and dis­
tinguished by barren land, high population density, and high flooding. On the other
hand, very low and low flood risk zones are frequently situated in areas like Agamesa,
Kochera Cheraka, Weto, Wetiku, Hasemo, and Shekusa Kebele, and were distinguished
by their low population density, low flood hazard, agroforest, and scrub forest.
Many previous research on flooding susceptibility mapping were validated using the
ROC curve method (Siahkamari et al. 2018; Lin et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019; Saha and
Agrawal 2020; Hidayah et al. 2022). Similarly, we utilized the ROC curve method to valid­
ate the identified flood risk zones and yielded an outstanding AUC value. These findings
are consistent with previous studies conducted in the Southern Oromia region (Burayu
et al. 2023), Dongting Lake Region (Wang et al. 2011), Ambo Town and its watershed
(Ogato et al. 2020), and Lower Awash Sub-basin, Ethiopia by Wondim (2016).

5. Conclusion
This research successfully utilized GIS, RS, and AHP to evaluate flood hazards and
risk areas in the Gidabo Watershed. Factors like slope, drainage density, LULC, eleva­
tion, soil types, and rainfall were considered based on literature and expert input to
determine the flood hazard zone in the area. The three main factors (LULC, flood
hazard zone, and population density) were selected to identify the flood risk zone.
The flood hazard map of the Gidabo watershed has provided valuable insights into
the distribution of flood hazard levels across the area. The map revealed that water­
shed approximately 15.22% was categorized as a very high flood hazard zone, while
26.38% is considered high, 27.27% as moderate, 20.05% as lower, and 11.06% as very
low. Furthermore, the flood risk map divided the Gidabo watershed into five zones,
ranging from very low to very high risk. The findings showed that the very lower-risk
zone covers 18.1% of the area, the lower-risk zone covers 28.4%, the moderate-risk
zone covers 29%, the high-risk zone covers 21.3%, and the very high-risk zone covers
3.2%. Finally, the flood risk map was validated and showed an accuracy of 94.3%.
These results provide important information for understanding and managing flood
risks in the Gidabo watershed. By identifying specific areas with higher flood hazards
and risks, appropriate measures can be taken to mitigate and reduce potential dam­
ages. Considering these findings when planning and implementing interventions is
crucial to ensure the safety and well-being of the communities living in the
watershed.

Author’s contributions
Dechasa Diriba: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing- Original
draft preparation, Validation; Tariku Takele: Helps in Validation and draft
16 D. DIRIBA ET AL.

preparation, Writing- Reviewing, and Editing; Shankar Karuppannan: Data curation,

Supervision, Writing- Reviewing and Editing; Musa Husein: Writing- Reviewing and
Editing.

Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal rela­
tionships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this study.

Funding
This research received no funding from any source.

Data availability statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the article/from
the corresponding author on request.

References
Allafta H, Opp C. 2021. GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for flood prone areas mapping in the
trans-boundary Shatt Al-Arab basin, Iraq-Iran. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 12(1):2087–
2116. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2021.1955755.
Areu-Rangel OS, Cea L, Bonasia R, Espinosa-Echavarria VJ. 2019. Impact of urban growth and
changes in land use on river Flood Hazard in Villahermosa, Tabasco (Mexico). Water.
11(2):304. doi: 10.3390/w11020304.
Athick AASM, Shankar K. 2019. Data on land use and land cover changes in Adama Wereda,
Ethiopia, on ETMþ, TM and OLI- TIRS Landsat sensor using PCC and CDM techniques.
Data Brief. 24:103880. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.103880.
Athick AASM, Shankar K, Naqvi HR. 2019. Data on time series analysis of land surface tem­
perature variation in response to vegetation indices in twelve Wereda of Ethiopia using
mono window, split window algorithm and spectral radiance model. Data Brief. 27:104773.
doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.104773.
Brunelli M. 2015. Introduction and fundamentals. In: Brunelli, M. (Ed.), Introduction to the
analytic hierarchy process. Cham: Springer International Publishing; p. 1–15. doi: 10.1007/
978-3-319-12502-2_1.
Burayu DG, Karuppannan S, Shuniye G. 2023. Identifying flood vulnerable and risk areas
using the integration of analytical hierarchy process (AHP), GIS, and remote sensing: a case
study of southern Oromia region. Urban Clim. 51:101640. doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101640.
Chakraborty S, Mukhopadhyay S. 2019. Assessing flood risk using analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) and geographical information system (GIS): application in Coochbehar district of
West Bengal, India. Nat Hazards. 99(1):247–274. doi: 10.1007/s11069-019-03737-7.
Chen J, Hill AA, Urbano LD. 2009. A GIS-based model for urban flood inundation. J Hydrol.
373(1–2):184–192. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.021.
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(1):105–120. doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1699-5.
Dadi B, Gumi B. 2020. Flooding in Ethiopia; causes, impact, and coping mechanism. A
Review.
Desalegn H, Mulu A. 2020. Flood vulnerability assessment using GIS at Fetam watershed,
upper Abbay basin, Ethiopia. Heliyon. 7(1):e05865. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05865.
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 17

Dixon B. 2005. Applicability of neuro-fuzzy techniques in predicting ground-water vulnerabil­

ity: a GIS-based sensitivity analysis. J Hydrol. 309(1-4):17–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.11.
010.
Feloni E, Mousadis I, Baltas E. 2020. Flood vulnerability assessment using a GIS-based multi-
criteria approach: the case of Attica region. J Flood Risk Manage. 13(S1):e12563. doi: 10.
1111/jfr3.12563.
Fern�andez DS, Lutz MA. 2010. Urban flood hazard zoning in Tucum�an Province, Argentina,
using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Eng Geol. 111(1-4):90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.eng­
geo.2009.12.006.
Gazi M, Islam M, Hossain S. 2019. Flood-Hazard Mapping in a Regional Scale – Way
Forward to the Future Hazard Atlas in Bangladesh. 3:1–11. doi: 10.26480/mjg.01.2019.01.11.
Gigovi�c L, Pamu�car D, Baji�c Z, Drobnjak S. 2017. Application of GIS-interval rough AHP
methodology for flood hazard mapping in urban areas. Water. 9(6):360. doi: 10.3390/
w9060360.
Goumrasa A, Guendouz M, Guettouche MS, Belaroui A. 2021. Flood hazard susceptibility
assessment in Chiffa Wadi watershed and along the first section of Algeria North–South
highway using GIS and AHP method. Appl Geomat. 13(4):565–585. doi: 10.1007/s12518-
021-00381-4.
Hagos YG, Andualem TG, Yibeltal M, Mengie MA. 2022. Flood hazard assessment and map­
ping using GIS integrated with multi-criteria decision analysis in upper Awash River basin,
Ethiopia. Appl Water Sci. 12(7):148. doi: 10.1007/s13201-022-01674-8.
Hdeib R, Abdallah C, Colin F, Brocca L, Moussa R. 2018. Constraining coupled hydrological-
hydraulic flood model by past storm events and post-event measurements in data-sparse
regions. J Hydrol. 565:160–176. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.08.008.
Hidayah, Entin, Lee, Wei-Koon, Halik, Gusfan, Pradhan, Biswajeet, Indarto, 2022. Assessing
coastal flood susceptibility in East Java, Indonesia: comparison of statistical bivariate and
machine learning techniques. Water, 2314, 3869. doi: 10.3390/w14233869.
Hidayah E, Pranadiarso T, Halik G, Indarto I, Lee W-K, Maruf MF. 2023. Flood Mapping
Based on Open-Source Remote Sensing Data Using an Efficient Band Combination System.
Ikirri M, Faik F, Echogdali FZ, Antunes IMHR, Abioui M, Abdelrahman K, Fnais MS,
Wanaim A, Id-Belqas M, Boutaleb S, et al. 2022. Flood hazard index application in arid
catchments: case of the Taguenit Wadi Watershed, Lakhssas, Morocco. Land. 11(8):1178.
doi: 10.3390/land11081178.
Kamaraj P, David Thangapandian I, Karuppannan S, Garo T. 2024. A statistical-based geospa­
tial approach to prioritize the watersheds for soil erosion conservation in the Upper Awash
Basin (Upstream Koka), Ethiopia. Kuwait Journal of Science. 51(2):100198. doi: 10.1016/j.
kjs.2024.100198.
Khosravi K, Pham BT, Chapi K, Shirzadi A, Shahabi H, Revhaug I, Prakash I, Tien Bui D.
2018. A comparative assessment of decision trees algorithms for flash flood susceptibility
modeling at Haraz watershed, northern Iran. Sci Total Environ. 627:744–755. doi: 10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.01.266.
Kia MB, Pirasteh S, Pradhan B, Mahmud AR, Sulaiman WNA, Moradi A. 2012. An artificial
neural network model for flood simulation using GIS: Johor River Basin, Malaysia. Environ
Earth Sci. 67(1):251–264. doi: 10.1007/s12665-011-1504-z.
Lappas I, Kallioras A. 2019. Flood susceptibility assessment through GIS-based multi-criteria
approach and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in a river basin in Central Greece. Int Res
J Eng Technol.
Lei W, Dong H, Chen P, Lv H, Fan L, Mei G. 2020. Study on runoff and infiltration for
expansive soil slopes in simulated rainfall. Water. 12(1):222. doi: 10.3390/w12010222.
Lin L, Wu Z, Liang Q. 2019. Urban flood susceptibility analysis using a GIS-based multi-crite­
ria analysis framework. Nat Hazards. 97(2):455–475. doi: 10.1007/s11069-019-03615-2.
Liu Y, Zhang W, Cui X. 2012. Flood emergency management using hydrodynamic modelling.
Procedia Engineering, 2012 International Conference on Modern Hydraulic Engineering. 28:
750–753. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.802.
18 D. DIRIBA ET AL.

Melkamu T, Bagyaraj M, Adimaw M, Ngusie A, Karuppannan S. 2022. Detecting and mapping

flood inundation areas in Fogera-Dera Floodplain, Ethiopia during an extreme wet season
using Sentinel-1 data. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. 127:103189. doi: 10.
1016/j.pce.2022.103189.
Moazzam MFU, Vansarochana A, Rahman AU. 2018. Analysis of flood susceptibility and zon­
ation for risk management using frequency ratio model in District Charsadda, Pakistan.
IJEGEO. 5(2):140–153. doi: 10.30897/ijegeo.407260.
Mokhtari E, Mezali F, Abdelkebir B, Engel B. 2023. Flood risk assessment using analytical hier­
archy process: a case study from the Cheliff-Ghrib watershed, Algeria. Journal of Water and
Climate Change. 14(3):694–711. doi: 10.2166/wcc.2023.316.
Nair PG, Das S, Medhe R, Chatterjee U, Kumar S, Karuppannan S. 2023. Flood susceptibility
mapping in the Periyar River Basin of Kerala integrating gis-ahp and Google Earth Engine.
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4549889.
Nigusse AG, Adhanom OG. 2019. Flood hazard and flood risk vulnerability mapping using
geo-spatial and MCDA around Adigrat, Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia. MEJS. 11(1):90–
107. doi: 10.4314/mejs.v11i1.6.
Ogato GS, Bantider A, Abebe K, Geneletti D. 2020. Geographic information system (GIS)-
Based multicriteria analysis of flooding hazard and risk in Ambo Town and its watershed,
West shoa zone, oromia regional State, Ethiopia. J Hydrol: reg Stud. 27:100659. doi: 10.
1016/j.ejrh.2019.100659.
Ouma YO, Tateishi R. 2014. Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using integrated
multi-parametric AHP and GIS: methodological overview and case study assessment. Water.
6(6):1515–1545. doi: 10.3390/w6061515.
Rahmati O, Zeinivand H, Besharat M. 2016. Flood hazard zoning in Yasooj region, Iran, using
GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 7(3):1000–1017. doi:
10.1080/19475705.2015.1045043.
Raufu IO, Mukaila I, Olaniyan K, Awodele Z. 2023. Application of remote sensing and geo­
graphical information system (GIS) in flood vulnerability mapping: a scenario of Akure
South, Nigeria. IJEGEO. 10(1):90–99., doi: 10.30897/ijegeo.1073697.
Rimba AB, Setiawati MD, Sambah AB, Miura F. 2017. Physical flood vulnerability mapping
applying geospatial techniques in Okazaki City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. Urban Sci. 1(1):7.
doi: 10.3390/urbansci1010007.
Saha AK, Agrawal S. 2020. Mapping and assessment of flood risk in Prayagraj district, India: a
GIS and remote sensing study. Nanotechnol Environ Eng. 5(2):11. doi: 10.1007/s41204-020-
00073-1.
Sajinkumar KS, Arya A, Rajaneesh A, Oommen T, Yunus AP, Rani VR, Avtar R, Thrivikramji
KP. 2022. Migrating rivers, consequent paleochannels: the unlikely partners and hotspots of
flooding. Sci Total Environ. 807(Pt 2):150842. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150842.
Santos LBL, Carvalho T, Anderson LO, Rudorff CM, Marchezini V, Londe LR, Saito SM.
2017. An RS-GIS-based comprehensive impact assessment of floods; a case study in Madeira
River, Western Brazilian Amazon. IEEE Geosci Remote Sensing Lett. 14(9):1614–1617. doi:
10.1109/LGRS.2017.2726524.
Sarmah T, Das S. 2018. Urban flood mitigation planning for Guwahati: a case of Bharalu
basin. J Environ Manage. 206:1155–1165. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.079.
Senan CPC, Ajin RS, Danumah JH, Costache R, Arabameri A, Rajaneesh A, Sajinkumar KS,
Kuriakose SL. 2023. Flood vulnerability of a few areas in the foothills of the Western Ghats:
a comparison of AHP and F-AHP models. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 37(2):527–556.
doi: 10.1007/s00477-022-02267-2.
Siahkamari S, Haghizadeh A, Zeinivand H, Tahmasebipour N, Rahmati O. 2018. Spatial pre­
diction of flood-susceptible areas using frequency ratio and maximum entropy models.
Geocarto International. 33(9):927–941. doi: 10.1080/10106049.2017.1316780.
Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Mansor S, Ahmad N. 2015. Flood susceptibility assessment using
GIS-based support vector machine model with different kernel types. CATENA. 125:91–101.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2014.10.017.
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 19

Tsakiris G. 2014. Flood risk assessment: concepts, modelling, applications. Nat Hazards Earth
Syst Sci. 14(5):1361–1369. doi: 10.5194/nhess-14-1361-2014.
Twumasi YA, Merem EC, Namwamba JB, Okwemba R, Ayala-Silva T, Abdollahi K, Lukongo
OEB, Tate J, Cour-Conant KL, Akinrinwoye CO. 2020. Use of GIS and Remote Sensing
Technology as a Decision Support Tool in Flood Disaster Management: the Case of
Southeast Louisiana, USA. JGIS. 12(02):141–157. doi: 10.4236/jgis.2020.122009.
Ullah S, Farooq M, Sarwar T, Tareen MJ, Wahid MA. 2016. Flood modeling and simulations
using hydrodynamic model and ASTER DEM: a case study of Kalpani River. Arab J Geosci.
9(6):439. doi: 10.1007/s12517-016-2457-z.
Vishnu CL, Sajinkumar KS, Oommen T, Coffman RA, Thrivikramji KP, Rani VR, Keerthy S.
2019. Satellite-based assessment of the August 2018 flood in parts of Kerala, India.
Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 10(1):758–767. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2018.1543212.
Wang Y, Hong H, Chen W, Li S, Panahi M, Khosravi K, Shirzadi A, Shahabi H, Panahi S,
Costache R. 2019. Flood susceptibility mapping in Dingnan County (China) using adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system with biogeography based optimization and imperialistic com­
petitive algorithm. J Environ Manage. 247:712–729. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.102.
Wang Y, Li Z, Tang Z, Zeng G. 2011. A GIS-based spatial multi-criteria approach for flood
risk assessment in the Dongting Lake Region, Hunan, Central China. Water Resour
Manage. 25(13):3465–3484. doi: 10.1007/s11269-011-9866-2.
Weday AM, Tabor KW, Gemeda DO. 2023. Flood hazards and risk mapping using geospatial
technologies in Jimma City, southwestern Ethiopia. Heliyon. 9(4):e14617. doi: 10.1016/j.heli­
yon.2023.e14617.
Wind Y, Saaty TL. 1980. Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Manage Sci.
26(7):641–658., doi: 10.1287/mnsc.26.7.641.
Wondim YK. 2016. Flood hazard and risk assessment using GIS and remote sensing in lower
awash sub-basin. Ethiopia.