Iran 2016

Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
DOI 10.1007/s11069-016-2357-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
A GIS-based flood susceptibility assessment and its

mapping in Iran: a comparison between frequency ratio
and weights-of-evidence bivariate statistical models
with multi-criteria decision-making technique
Khabat Khosravi1 • Ebrahim Nohani2 • Edris Maroufinia3 •
Hamid Reza Pourghasemi4
Received: 5 September 2015 / Accepted: 16 May 2016 / Published online: 25 May 2016
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract Flood is one of the most prevalent natural disasters that frequently occur in the
northern part of Iran reported in hot spots of flood occurrences. The main aim of the current
study was to prepare flood susceptibility maps using four models, namely frequency ratio
(FR), weights-of-evidence (WofE), analytical hierarchy process (AHP), and ensemble of
frequency ratio with AHP (FR-AHP), and to compare them at Haraz Watershed in
Mazandaran Province, Iran. A total of 211 flood locations were prepared in GIS envi-
ronment, of which 151 locations were randomly selected for modeling and the remaining
60 locations were used for validation aims. In the next step, 10 flood-conditioning factors
were prepared including slope angle, plan curvature, elevation, topographic wetness index,
stream power index, rainfall, distance from river, geology, landuse, and normalized dif-
ference vegetation index. The receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the
curve (AUC) were created for different flood susceptibility maps. Validation of results
showed that AUC values for success rate in training data set, for FR, WofE, AHP, and FR-
AHP, were 97.07, 98.96, 95.91, and 86.19 % with prediction rates of 0.9657 (96.57 %),
0.9596 (95.96 %), 0.9492 (94.92 %), and 0.8469 (84.69 %), respectively. Moreover, the
results showed that the frequency ratio model had the highest AUC in comparison with
other models. Generally, the four models show a reasonable accuracy in flood-susceptible
areas. The results of this study can be useful for managers, researchers, and planners to
manage the susceptible areas to flood and reduce damages.
& Hamid Reza Pourghasemi

hr.pourghasemi@shirazu.ac.ir
1
Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural Sciences
and Natural Resources University, Sari, Mazandaran, Iran
2
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Dezful Branch, Islamic Azad University, Dezful, Iran
3
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Mahabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mahabad, Iran
4
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering, College of Agriculture, Shiraz
University, Shiraz, Iran
123
948 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Keywords Flood susceptibility Frequency ratio (FR) Weights-of-evidence (WofE)

Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) GIS Iran
1 Introduction
Among various natural disasters, flood is one of the most devastating and common cases
with a lot of damages (Youssef et al. 2011; WHO 2003) that claiming more than 20,000
lives per year and adversely affecting about 75 million people worldwide, mostly through
homelessness (Smith 2001). Floods can be defined as a result of heavy rainfall and
snowmelt that overflow into rivers and flood plains, temporarily covering the surrounding
area (Kron 2002). It can cause damage to transportation, cultural heritage, environmental
ecosystems, agriculture, bridges, economy, and human life (Messner and Meyer 2006; Yu
et al. 2013). In Iran, due to the large area, multiple climates, and variable temporal and
spatial rainfall in most catchments, especially in the North, enormous floods are observed
every year. During the last decade, the level of economic damage caused by flood disasters
has increased to 1705 thousand dollars (Norouzi and Taslimi 2012). Although prevention
of floods is not possible, they can be predicted by proper methods and analyses (Cloke and
Pappenberger 2009); therefore, flood mitigation and prevention measures are necessary
(Billa et al. 2006; Huang et al. 2008; Dang et al. 2011; Alvarado-Aguilar et al. 2012). One
of the necessary measures is flood susceptibility mapping (Bubeck et al. 2012). According
to Norouzi and Taslimi (2012), in Iran, floods and their damages are increasing; an increase
by 250 percent in the flood damage has been reported during the past decade (Norouzi and
Taslimi 2012).
One of the reasons can be the landuse changes (Bronstert 2003). In the northern parts of
the country, due to urbanization (especially, building villas) in forests, a lot of trees are
being cut, every day, and the conversion of forest into residential areas is growing wider.
This leads to an imbalance in the hydrological catchments. The second reason can be
attributed to the climate change (Kjeldsen 2010; Tehrany et al. 2015a). In recent years,
rainfall has changed into shower due to climate change; thus, heavy rain falls in a very
short time and rapidly turns into flood as the intensity is more than soil permeability
capacity. In this regard, Iran, particularly in northern parts, is not an exception and we
observe many high-risk floods. Examples of the recent floods in Mazandaran are those in
the years 1995, 2003, and 2012 in Noshahr; 1991 in Neka; 2013 in Behshahr; and 2013 in
Sari. All floods occurred in less than 1 or 2 h due to heavy rain and caused great human and
financial losses in Mazandaran Province.
Flood susceptibility mapping has been studied and observed in different literature
reviews (Dawson et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2008; Pradhan and Youssef 2011; Tehrany et al.
2015a). Quick access to satellite based on remote sensing (RS) data and improvement of
business practices have increased the use of GIS and RS in preparing flood susceptibility
maps. In this regard, numerous modeling techniques have been proposed and used to assess
flood disasters. So, GIS and RS techniques have found wide application in the analysis of
flooding (Dewan et al. 2007; Kourgialas and Karatzas 2011; Haq et al. 2012; Patel and
Srivastava 2013; Ouma and Tateishi 2014; Kazakis et al. 2015) as the problems of correct
flood susceptibility analysis and provision of maps for physically based rainfall-runoff
models have remained unresolved (Talei et al. 2010; Kisi et al. 2012). On the other hand, it
cannot be modeled by simple and nonlinear hydrological methods due to the complexity of
the catchment (Sahoo et al. 2009).
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 949
Some of the most popular methods are frequency ratio (Pradhan et al. 2011; Lee et al.
2012; Tehrany et al. 2014b; Rahmati et al. 2015a), artificial neural network (Kia et al.
2012), analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Chen et al. 2011), logistic regression
(Nampak et al. 2014), fuzzy logic (Pourghasemi et al. 2012b), support vector machine
(Tehrany et al. 2015a), and decision tree (Tehrany et al. 2013). Frequency ratio is one of
the most powerful statistical methods which has a simple concept to be understood (Liao
and Carin 2009). This method is able to run bivariate statistical analysis (BSA) and
analysis of the effect of each class of factors on flooding (Tehrany et al. 2015b). Zou
et al. (2013) suggested AHP method as a quite cost-effective, easy to understand, and use
method. This method is based on the experts knowledge, which is a serious flaw
(Tehrany et al. 2015b) and a biased source (Rahmati et al. 2015b). Multi-criteria decision
analysis (MCDA) is an important tool in the analysis of complex decision problems
which often need incomparable criteria or data (Hwang and Lin 1987; Malczewski
2006). Coupled MCDA-GIS method has been used in spatial modeling and analysis of
natural disasters and especially in flooding (Malczewski 2006; Scheuer et al. 2011;
Paquette and Lowry 2012; Solin 2012; Kazakis et al. 2015; Rahmati et al. 2015b). AHP
(Saaty 1980) is the most popular technique in the multi-criteria decision-making (Rozos
et al. 2011; Pourghasemi et al. 2012b). The performances of MCDA and GIS were
evaluated by Fernández and Lutz (2010) for mapping of the areas that were vulnerable to
flooding in Tucuman, Argentina. Their research showed that the AHP technique in GIS
was a powerful method to prepare maps of natural disasters with a fair degree of
accuracy.
Tehrany et al. (2015a) studied accuracy of four kernel types of support vector
machine algorithm for flood susceptibility mapping in Kuala Terengganu Basin,
Malaysia. They stated that SVM-RBF had a high accuracy with AUC value of 84.97 %
for prediction rate.
Yossef et al. (2016) have performed the flood susceptibility mapping in Jeddah City in
Saudi Arabia using FR and logistic regression (LR) and their ensemble. They have stated
that the ensemble model has a high accuracy in comparison with FR or LR single models.
Abundant floods occur in Iran, especially in northern cities, which have led to financial
and even life losses. The reason of these damages is the lack of information about flood
zones as well as lack of essential actions to prevent flooding. The objectives of this study
were to prepare flood susceptibility maps of Haraz Watershed and to evaluate the effi-
ciency of different methods such as frequency ratio, weights-of-evidence, AHP, and FR-
AHP in preparing flood susceptibility maps.
Haraz Watershed is located between longitudes 51430 and 52360 E and latitudes 35450
and 36220 N (Fig. 1). The area of study lies in south of Amol City, Mazandaran Province,
Iran. It covers an area of 4000 km2. Some of the important heights are Damavand, Shim,
and Lu. The important residential centers of Haraz Watershed are Polur, Tashal, Tiran,
Rineh, Kandovan, Abasak, Gaznak, Baladeh, and Noor (Fig. 1). The main causes of
flooding in these areas are high-intensity rainfall in a short time (due to climate change);
landuse changes in rangeland and especially change of forest into residential areas, agri-
cultural lands, orchards; and the lack of essential action to prevent flooding. October is the
most important month of the year with an average rainfall of 160 mm (Iran Meteorological
Organization). This study area was selected since many destructive floods had occurred in
it and caused loss of lives and property.
The main difference between this research and the other research described in the
literature is that the novel FR-AHP hybrid model is applied and the result is compared with
123
950 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Fig. 1 Flood location map with hill-shaded map of Haraz Watershed, Iran
FR, WofE, AHP and validated for flood susceptibility mapping at Haraz Watershed, Iran.
The application of FR-AHP hybrid model provides originality for this research in flood
susceptibility mapping.
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 951
2 Methodology
The methodology of the current research is presented as flowchart in Fig. 2. It includes the
following steps:
• Flood inventory mapping;
• Determination of flood-conditioning factors;
• Modeling flood susceptibility and its validations.
Flood susceptibility mapping in Haraz Watershed, Iran
70 % 30 %
Flood inventory map
Training Validation
Flood conditioning factors
Slope Angle Validation using AUC

Plan Curvature
Altitude
DEM
TWI & SPI
River
River Distance from river
Meteorological data Rainfall
Geology Lithology
IRS Imagery Landuse & NDVI

Reclassify
Expert knowledge
Model 1: FR Model 2: WofE Model 3: AHP

(Questionnaire)
Model 4: FR-AHP
Flood Susceptibility maps
Fig. 2 Methodological flowchart adopted in Haraz Watershed
123
952 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
2.1 Flood inventory mapping
Flood inventory map is essential for study of the relationship between flood occurrences and
different conditioning factors. Accuracy of the past flood events has a very high influence on
the accuracy of flood susceptibility map (Merz et al. 2007). In this study, the flood inventory
map is prepared based on the floods occurred in 2004, 2008, and 2012 using documentary
sources (Mazandaran Regional Water Company) and extensive field surveys. In this study,
flood locations are randomly and spatially (Ohlmacher and Davis 2003; Tunusluoglu et al.
2008; Pourghasemi et al. 2012c; Pourghasemi and Beheshtirad 2014) divided into two
groups of training and predicting data. Almost 70 % of floods have been used as training for
calibration of models, and the remaining 30 % (which were not used in model training) have
been used as validation for evaluation of the models predictions.
For this aim, 211 flood locations and 211 non-flood locations were prepared and mapped
in 1:25,000 scale. Non-flood zones were selected on the topographic map and Google Earth
with regard to areas such as hills and mountains on which floods cannot affect (Tehrany
et al. 2014a). Some photographs of the floods occurred in northern part of the country are
shown in Fig. 3.
2.2 Flood-conditioning factors
Determination of flood-conditioning factors is essential for flood susceptibility mapping

(Kia et al. 2012). In this study, the ten conditioning factors, including slope angle, plan
curvature, elevation, TWI, SPI, rainfall, distance from river, geology, landuse, and NDVI,
were selected as thematic layers (Tehrany et al. 2015a, b). ArcGIS10.1 and SAGA GIS 2.8
were employed to generate the required conditioning factors. Each conditioning factor was
transformed into a grid spatial database by 20*20 m of cell size, and the grid of the Haraz
Watershed was constructed by 5299 columns and 3027 rows.
Preparation of digital elevation model (DEM) is the first step in this research that get
from Mazandaran Regional Water Company. Terrain parameters, such as slope angle, plan
curvature, and altitude, were derived directly from DEM using ArcGIS10.1 (Fig. 4a–c).
Distance from river is one of the main conditioning factors, which has significant impact
on flooding (Fernández and Lutz 2010; Glenn et al. 2012; Tehrany et al. 2015a). This
factor was divided into 6 classes (Pourghasemi et al. 2013a) using natural break method
based on Table 9 and the results of other researchers (Bednarik et al. 2010; Naghibi et al.
2014 (Fig. 4d). The water-related factors such as TWI and SPI (Fig. 4e–f) were derived
directly from DEM in SAGA GIS according to the following equations (Moore et al. 1991;
Jaafari et al. 2014; Nampak et al. 2014):
TWI ¼ Ln ðAs =bÞ ð1Þ
SPI ¼ As tan b ð2Þ

where As and b are the specific catchment area (m2/m) and slope angle (in degree),
respectively. TWI shows an amount of the flow to accumulate at any point in the catchment
and tendency of the water to go downslope using the power of the gravity (Moore et al.
1991). SPI is the measurement of erosive power of surface runoff. In order to prepare
rainfall layer, we used the data of 20 years (1991–2011) from 17 rain gauges. For inter-
polation of rainfall, various methods such as simple kriging, ordinary kriging, inverse
distance weighted (IDW) with power of 1–5, radial basis function (RBF) with completely
regularized spline, and spline with tension kernel function were used. Finally, according to
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 953
Fig. 3 Some photographs of flood damages in recent years in Mazandaran Province, Iran
the lowest root-mean-standard error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE), the map of
rainfall has been prepared with simple kriging method (Fig. 4g; Table 1).
Another factor that has an impact on flooding is lithology, which has been selected as the
vital factor of spatio-temporal variation on hydrology and sediment production in the
watershed (Miller et al. 1990). So, the geology map with shape file (.Shp) format was
obtained from the Mazandaran Regional Water Company, which was originally prepared by
the Geological Survey Department in Iran in 1:100,000 scale. The study area was covered
by various types of lithological formations. The geological setting of the area was classified
into 3 groups that are shown in Fig. 4h, and lithological properties are listed in Table 2. In
general, 38.85, 56.41, and 4.73 % of the Haraz Watershed are covered by formations of
Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic, respectively. The landuse types have a significant role
in flooding due to their impact on the components of hydrological processes, such as
infiltration and runoff generation (Rahamati et al. 2015a). The landuse map was prepared
using OLI of Landsat 8 image and classified into seven categories of water body, bare land,
forest, residential, garden, rangeland, and irrigated lands using neural network algorithm
and supervised classification in ENVI 5.1 software (Fig. 4i). The NDVI is a measure of
vegetation characteristic of an area (Dai et al. 2001; Cevik and Topal 2003) between the
values of -1 to ?1. The NDVI map was prepared using satellite images of OLI of Landsat 8
(taken from the National Geography Organization of Iran) in 2013 (Fig. 4j). The NDVI
values were calculated by the following equation (Pradhan et al. 2010):
NDVI ¼ ðNIR VISÞ=ðNIR þ VISÞ ð3Þ
where VIS and NIR are the spectral reflectance measurements acquired in the visible (red)
and near-infrared regions, respectively.
123
954 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Fig. 4 Flood-conditioning factors in the study area: a slope angle, b plan curvature, c altitude, d distance
from river, e topographic wetness index (TWI), f stream power index (SPI), g rainfall, h geology, i landuse,
and j NDVI
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 955
Fig. 4 continued
123
956 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Fig. 4 continued
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 957
Fig. 4 continued
123
958 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Fig. 4 continued
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 959
Table 1 Selection of the best

Interpolation method RMSE MAE
method for interpolation of rain
gauge data at Haraz Watershed
Simple kriging 160.7 130.4
Ordinary kriging 180.4 136.5
RBF (CRS) 174.8 126.02
RBF (SWT) 173.2 126.9
IDW:1 174.02 127.6
IDW:2 179.01 131.7
IDW:3 185.8 136.6
IDW:4 172.4 186.7
IDW:5 200.7 144.1
2.3 Flood susceptibility modeling
2.3.1 Frequency ratio model
This method is one of the most popular bivariate statistical methods that has been used in
various fields of natural hazard, such as groundwater spring and qanat potential mapping
(Pourtaghi and Pourghasemi 2014; Naghibi et al. 2014), landslide susceptibility mapping
(Youssef et al. 2014), and flood susceptibility mapping (Tehrany et al. 2013, 2014a, b;
Rahamti et al. 2015a). The advantages of this model are that it can be simply implemented
and its result is completely easy to comprehend (Yalcin et al. 2011; Ozdemir and Altural
2013).
FR method is used for evaluation of the impact of each affecting factor on flood
occurrences (Lee et al. 2012; Lee and Pradhan 2007). FR is expressed in Eq. 4, and flood
susceptibility index (FSI) is computed as the sum of frequency ratios for all the given
parameters or factors (Eq. 5) (Lee and Pradhan 2007).
" #," #
.X m X
n
FR ¼ Npix ðSXi Þ SXi Npix ðXj Þ= Npix ðXj Þ ð4Þ
i¼1 j¼1
X
n
FSI ¼ FR ð5Þ
j¼1
where Npix(SXi) is the number of pixels with floods within class i of factor variable X,
Npix(Xj) is the number of pixels within factor variable Xj, m is the number of classes in the
parameter variable Xi, and n is the number of factors in the study area (Regmi et al. 2013;
Jaafari et al. 2014).
2.3.2 Weights-of-evidence model (WofE)
This bivariate statistical method is based on log-linear Bayesian theorem, which was first
applied in the field of mineral exploration in 1988 (Bonham-Carter et al. 1988), but, in
recent years, it has been frequently used for preparing susceptibility maps of natural
disasters (Van Westen et al. 2002; Mohammady et al. 2012; Regmi et al. 2013; Jaafari
et al. 2014; Tehrany et al. 2014a; Rahmati et al. 2015a; Youssef et al. 2015). This method
describes a relationship between the flood event and the conditioning factors so that the
123
960 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Table 2 Lithology of the Haraz Watershed

Lithology Code Era
Undifferentiated quaternary deposits Q

Loose alluvium in the river channels Qal
Rock fall Qf
Landslide Qlan
Moraines (glacial deposits) Qm
Scree, talus fans Qs
Scree Qsc
Marine conglomeratic terraces Qt
Old terraces Qt1
Younger gravel fans and terraces Qt2
Loess Qt2c
Sinter deposits Qtr
Basalt and olivine Qv1
Agglomerate and andesite tuff Qv2
Damavand magma, andesite trachyte Qv3 Cenozoic
Quartz diorite Qd
Rhyolite Rh
Trachyte TR
Dacite da
Marl, Mila formation E-m
Pyroclastic and andesite. Karaj formation EA
Conglomerate. Fajan formation Ef
Gypsum Eg
Tuff, volcanic rock Ek
Nummulitic limestone Ez
Dacite, pyroclastic with Ezt2
Calcareous and siliceous shales Eksl
Middle tuff member: pyroclastics Ekt2
Trachyandesite, trachybasalt, basanite Evkt2
Santonian limestone K2l
Limestone, marl, limestone, silty marl K2plm
Cast locally with the layers of dolomitic limestone and shale Kgl
Limestone and marl Kl-m
Orbitolina limestone Klt
Basalt Kv
Basalt, diabase, pyroclastic rocks Kv1 Mesozoic
And pyroclastic volcanic rocks are not separated Kv1, 2
Tuff, basaltic andesite pyroclastic Kv2
Cut from multiple sources TRb
A thin layer of cream limestone, shale, limestone, Elika TRe1
Thick dolomite to form massive, limestone TRe2
Mafic volcanic rocks TRv3
Gabbro Tgb
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 961
Table 2 continued
Lithology Code Era
Rocks, marl, conglomerate, Paleocene Pecf

Sandstone, shale, limestone, quartzite, make peace Pefvmc
Rocks, marl, conglomerate, Paleocene Pd
Limestone, marly, and sandy shales Pn Paleozoic
Fusulina limestone, dolomitic limestone Pr
Basic flow, pyroclastics Pv
probability of flooding in any class of conditioning factors would be obtained. Mathe-

matical relationships and equations are given by Bonham-Carter (1991, 1994). This model
has many fans as it is data-driven and is based on the probabilistic Bayesian model
(Pradhan et al. 2010). The basic parameters for the implementation of this model are
positive (W?) and negative weights (W-) (Tehrany et al. 2014a), and the magnitude of
these weights shows a positive correlation between predictable variables and floods
(Pradhan et al. 2010). W- shows the absence of effective factors on flood and represents
negative correlation (Regmi et al. 2013). The WofE model calculates the weight of classes
for each conditioning factor (A) as follows (Bonham-Carter 1994).
PfBjAg
W þ ¼ ln ð6Þ
PfBjAg

PfBjAg
W ¼ ln
Ag ð7Þ
PfBj
where P and Ln are probability and natural logarithm (Ln = loge), respectively. B is the
presence, and B is the absence of each conditioning factor that has an impact on flooding.
In addition, A and A are the presence and absence of flood, respectively (Xu et al. 2012).
Weight contrast is the difference between W? and W (Dahal et al. 2008; Tehrany et al.
2013; Rahmati et al. 2015a). Generally, the magnitude of this contrast shows the spatial
correlation between the conditioning factors in the occurrence of floods. For positive and
negative relations, the values of C are positive and negative, respectively (Pourghasemi
et al. 2013b). For W, standard deviation is calculated as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
SðCÞ ¼ S2 W þ þ S2 W ð8Þ
where S2W? is the variance of positive weights and S2W- is the variance of negative
weights in Eq. 8. Variance of weights can be expressed as follows:
1 1
S2 W þ ¼ þ ð9Þ
NfB \ Ag B \ A
1 1
S2 W ¼ þ ð10Þ
fB \ Ag B \ A
where N denotes the number of unit cells.
At last, the final weight (Wfinal) is defined as the ratio of the contrast (C) divided by its
standard deviation according to Eq. 11 (Bonham-Carter 1991):
123
962 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Wfinal ¼ ðC=SðCÞÞ ð11Þ
2.3.3 Analytical hierarchy process model
AHP is semiquantitative (Pourghasemi et al. 2012b) and one of the most frequent tech-
niques of MCDA that allows map layers to be weighted in order to reflect their relative
influences (Adiat et al. 2012).
AHP is a multi-objective and a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach that
enables the user to achieve scale advantages drawn from a set of alternatives (Saaty
1980). This technique was also used in various fields of earth sciences and natural
disasters, including flood hazard zonation (Rahmati et al. 2015b), landslide susceptibility
assessment (Pourghasemi et al. 2012b; Althuwaynee et al. 2014), and determination of
the potential of groundwater resources (Rahmati et al. 2014). Generally, in AHP model,
the two methods of questionnaire and non-questionnaire were applied. In the question-
naire method, for obtaining the weight of each factor, ten questionnaires were given to
ten hydrology specialists to assign a proper weight to each conditioning factor according
to Saatys standard table (Saaty 1980) (Table 3). To evaluate a large number of criteria
and solve multi-variable problems, AHP has been used widely; this model allows the
decision-makers from any group to test it and to solve the problem (Chang et al. 2008).
AHP is based on pair-wise comparison that makes judgments and calculations easy
(Eisavi et al. 2012). In the AHP model, we should firstly determine the effect of each
conditioning factor on flood susceptibility relative to each other based on dual evalua-
tion. Rate determines the weight of each parameter to flood susceptibility, and ranks give
the weight of each class of flood-conditioning factors on the flooding (1–10). For some
parameters, the numbers 1–10 were assigned reversely; for example, if the first slope
class had the highest effect, a more weight was given to it. The calculations were
performed by AHP extension in ArcGIS10.1.
Table 3 Scale of preference between two parameters in AHP (Saaty 1994)

Scale Degree of Explanation
preference
1 Equally Two activities contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderately Experience and judgment slightly to moderately favor one activity over
another
5 Strongly Experience and judgment strongly or essentially favor one activity over
another
7 Very strongly An activity is strongly favored over another, and its dominance is showed
in practice
9 Extremely The evidence of favoring one activity over another is of the highest degree
possible of an affirmation
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate Used to represent compromises between the preferences in weights 1, 3, 5,
value 7, and 9
Reciprocals Opposites Used for inverse comparison
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 963
2.3.4 Ensemble of frequency ratio and AHP (FR-AHP) model
Some research in flood modeling has applied the ensemble methods to produce the sus-
ceptibility maps using different techniques such as SVM-FR, FR-LR, WOfE-SVM (Teh-
rany et al. 2013, 2014a, 2015b).
When the model has been used individually, there are some limitations due to statistical
assumptions (Althuwaynee et al. 2014); therefore, this research proposed ensemble tech-
nique to reduce these limitations by extending the capability.
One of the biggest problems in developing countries is data scarcity as the limitation.
Another point is that the greater the number of parameters, the greater the accuracy would
be, which is in accordance with Donati and Turrini (2002); therefore, intersection of few
layers as causative factor is not adequate for flood susceptibility maps.
For ensemble of FR-AHP model, AHP non-questionnaire method was applied. In this
study, for non-questionnaire method, the weights obtained from the frequency ratio model
were applied as the input data for paired analysis instead of experts opinions, by which the
process was conducted in three phases as follows (Ghosh et al. 2011; Althuwaynee et al.
2014). At the first step, Eq. 12 was used for rating each spatial factor with the training data
set.
PR ¼ ðSAmax SAmin Þ=ðSAmax SAmin Þmin ð12Þ
where SA is the index of the spatial association (FR) of spatial factors and flooding, and PR
is the predictor rate. The difference between the maximum and minimum SAs was divided
into minimum difference of total factors shown in Table 4. In the second step, PRs, which
represent the relationship between actual relative weights among the factors, refer to the
density of actual flood event. In order to determine PRs, numbers in Max–Min column
were, respectively, divided by the individual numbers of Max–Min, for each of which a
column was formed (Table 4). In the third step, individual numbers were divided by the
total number of the columns and the eigenvalue could be obtained (Table 5). Integer values
are more applicable to the rating, which can be obtained by the division of fractional
weight by the smallest weight between them. More details are given in Ghosh et al. (2011)
and Althuwaynee et al. (2014).
Finally, the final weights and consistency ratio (CR) were obtained by the AHP
extension in ArcGIS10.1 for two models of AHP and FR-AHP. The ratio between con-
sistency index of matrix and random index is called CR, of which the range is between 0
and 1. CR is a utility to show the probability when the matrix judgment is randomly
generated (Malczewski 1999). If the CR is larger than 0.1, the model would automatically
be deleted (Althuwaynee et al. 2014).
CR ¼ CI=RI ð13Þ
where RI is the average of the resultant consistency index and CI is consistency index,
which is as follows:
CI ¼ ððkmax nÞ=ðn 1ÞÞ ð14Þ
where kmax is the largest eigenvalue matrix and n is the rank of matrix.
In order to make an ensemble of FR models with AHP (extracted from FR), at first, FR
values were normalized through dividing each number by its maximum amount. These
normalized values were used to reclassify all conditioning factors to be applied in the
ensemble modeling (Youssef et al. 2014). Ayalew and Yamagishi (2005) indicated that
123
964
123
Table 4 Pair-wise rating matrix of relative importance of conditioning factors
Slope Curvature Altitude Distance from river TWI SPI Rainfall Lithology Landuse NDVI
Slope angle 1.00 4.51 0.50 0.65 1.09 0.42 1.09 18.03 0.16 0.20
Plan curvature 0.22 1.00 0.11 0.14 0.24 0.09 0.24 4.00 0.04 0.04
Altitude 1.99 8.98 1.00 1.30 2.18 0.83 2.17 35.94 0.32 0.40
Distance from river 1.53 6.91 0.77 1.00 1.68 0.64 1.66 27.63 0.25 0.31
TWI 0.91 4.12 0.46 0.60 1.00 0.38 0.99 16.47 0.15 0.18
SPI 2.39 10.77 1.20 1.56 2.61 1.00 2.60 43.06 0.39 0.48
Rainfall 0.92 4.15 0.46 0.60 1.01 0.39 1.00 16.59 0.15 0.19
Lithology 0.06 0.25 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.06 1.00 0.01 0.01
Landuse 6.17 27.80 3.09 4.03 6.75 2.58 6.70 111.22 1.00 1.24
NDVI 4.97 22.42 2.50 3.25 5.45 2.08 5.40 89.69 0.81 1.00
Sum 20.17 90.91 10.12 13.16 22.08 8.44 21.91 363.63 3.27 4.05
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Table 5 Estimated eigenvectors of the pair-wise rating matrix and weights of predictors of flood susceptibility
Slope Curvature Altitude Distance from TWI SPI Rainfall Lithology Landuse NDVI Sum Fractional Integer
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
river weight weight
Slope angle 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.50 0.05 18.03
Plan curvature 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.01 4.00
Altitude 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.99 0.10 35.94
Distance from 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.76 0.08 27.63
river
TWI 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.45 0.05 16.47
SPI 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 1.18 0.12 43.06
Rainfall 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.46 0.05 16.59
Lithology 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.003 1.00
Landuse 0.3059 0.3059 0.3059 0.3059 0.3059 0.3059 0.3059 0.3059 0.3059 0.3059 3.0586 0.3059 111.22
NDVI 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 2.47 0.25 89.69
Sum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 1.00 364
965
123
966 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
normalization of all independent parameters is necessary as it facilitates the final analysis

and interpretation.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Flood susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio model
The FR value was calculated for ten conditioning factors according to their relationship
with floods (Table 6). Higher frequency ratio indicates a strong correlation between
conditioning factors and flood occurrences (Tehrany et al. 2013). Therefore, the values
greater or less than 1 represent a strong or weak relationship, respectively (Pradhan et al.
2011). The result showed that the FR values for the slopes of 0–5.7 and 5.7–15.9 were
5.68 and 2.02, respectively, and for slopes greater than 15.9, they were less than 1. About
77 % of the occurred floods have been recorded in these two classes. With this interpre-
tation, and based on facts and ground checks, the lower slopes have the higher possibility
of flooding; and by the increase in slope degree, the risk of flooding would be less. For plan
curvature, concave slopes had the highest effect with FR value of 1.65 and then flat areas
with value of 1.14 on flood events. Convex class with frequency ratio of 0.37 had a very
little impact on flooding. About 85 % of the old floods had occurred in two classes of
concave and flat slope shapes. Another important factor affecting flood was elevation. The
lowest elevation class (328–1141 m) had the highest frequency ratio value (11.6) and thus
had the greatest impact on flooding. Almost 40 % of the past floods had occurred in the
first elevation class. In general, when elevation is increasing, the frequency ratio decreases,
so that the lowest and highest elevation values had the greatest and least impacts on flood
occurrences, respectively. One of the most important factors affecting the flood is distance
from the river. The results showed that the class of B500 m with FR of 8.91 was the most
effective one (85 % of floods have been recorded in this class) and the other classes of
distance from the river had inconsiderable impact on floods. Overall, according to Tehrany
et al. (2014a, 2015a), most susceptible areas to flooding were the areas with lowest ele-
vation, minimum slope angle, flat area, and close to rivers. For the conditioning factor of
TWI, class (7.1–8) and class (3.8–4.1) had the highest (5.36) and lowest frequency ratio
values (0.09), respectively. In the case of TWI, the first four classes had an FR less than 1
and the next classes had a frequency ratio greater than 1. Therefore, higher TWI has more
flood occurrences in the study area. Another factor affecting floods is SPI. In the case of
SPI, class 6 (1,234,459–1,810,539) has the maximum value of frequency ratio (15.9). In
general, classes 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have frequency ratios more than 1, and classes 1, 7, 8, 9,
and 10 have frequency ratios less than 1. So, it can be seen that for smaller SPI the
probability of flooding is high. For the rainfall factor, class 183–267 mm has the highest
frequency ratio (5.31). The reason that the increase in rainfall still has no impact on the
flooding is the increase in elevation, because with increase in elevation rainfall would
increase; however, flooding occurs at lower elevations. For lithology factor, Cenozoic
group has a very low impact on floods (frequency ratio), but Mesozoic and Paleozoic have
greater effects by an FR more than 1. Almost 57, 37, and 6 % of the flooding occurred in
the Mesozoic, Cenozoic, and Paleozoic groups, respectively. Combining the maps of rivers
with lithology maps showed that rivers crossed from areas containing Mesozoic and
somewhat Paleozoic. Cenozoic group lays mainly in mountainous areas (especially Mount
Damavand) where the probability of flooding is inconsiderable. For landuse, water bodies
123
Table 6 Spatial relationship between flood-conditioning factors and flooding locations
Class No. of pixels in Percentage of No. of Percentage of FR W? i- S(C) Wfinal Normalized Max– PR
domain domain floods floods Min
Slope angle
0–5.7 527,064 5.31 47 31.12 5.86 1.77 -0.32 0.18 11.88 1.00 5.77 17.89
5.7–15.9 2,278,837 22.95 70 46.35 2.02 0.70 -0.36 0.16 6.53 0.34
15.9–24.6 3,019,849 30.41 22 14.57 0.48 -0.74 0.21 0.23 -4.08 0.08
24.6–33.25 2,788,907 28.09 4 2.64 0.09 -2.36 0.30 0.51 -5.26 0.02
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
33.25–66.77 1,315,332 13.25 8 5.29 0.40 -0.92 0.09 0.36 -2.76 0.07
Plan curvature (100/m)
Convex 4,045,570 40.74 23 15.23 0.37 -0.98 0.36 0.23 -5.92 0.23 1.28 4
Flat 2,545,930 25.64 44 29.13 1.14 0.13 -0.05 0.18 0.98 0.69
Concave 3,338,493 33.62 84 55.62 1.65 0.50 -0.40 0.16 5.53 1.00
Altitude (m)
328–1141 337,377 3.40 59 39.073 11.50 2.44 -0.46 0.17 17.41 1.00 11.50 35.94
1141–1658 653,985 6.59 18 11.921 1.81 0.59 -0.06 0.25 2.60 0.16
1658–2093 841,869 8.48 31 20.530 2.42 0.88 -0.14 0.20 5.09 0.21
2093–2456 1,259,033 12.68 22 14.570 1.15 0.14 -0.02 0.23 0.70 0.10
2456–2770 1,976,235 19.90 21 13.907 0.70 -0.36 0.07 0.24 -1.83 0.06
2770–3075 1,998,538 20.13 0 0.000 0.00 None 0.22 None None 0.00
3075–3417 1,696,868 17.09 0 0.000 0.00 None 0.19 None None 0.00
3417–3954 1,048,316 10.56 0 0.000 0.00 None 0.11 None None 0.00 8.84 27.61
G [ 3954 117,797 1.19 0 0.000 0.00 None 0.01 None None 0.00
Distance from river (m)
0–500 945,165 9.52 128 84.76 8.91 2.19 -1.78 0.23 17.52 1.00
500–1000 889,321 8.96 9 5.96 0.67 -0.41 0.03 0.34 -1.28 0.07
1000–1500 858,482 8.64 5 3.31 0.38 -0.96 0.06 0.45 -2.23 0.04
1500–2000 827,818 8.34 2 1.32 0.16 -1.84 0.07 0.71 -2.69 0.02
967
123
Table 6 continued
968
123
2000–2500 798,718 8.04 1 0.66 0.08 -2.50 0.08 1.00 -2.57 0.01
[2500 5,611,062 56.50 6 3.97 0.07 -2.65 0.79 0.42 -8.27 0.01
TWI
1.8–3.7 1,064,318 10.72 3 1.987 0.19 -1.69 0.09 0.58 -3.05 0.03 5.27 16.48
3.8–4.1 2,232,092 22.48 3 1.987 0.09 -2.43 0.23 0.58 -4.56 0.02
4.2–4.5 2,037,114 20.51 8 5.298 0.26 -1.35 0.18 0.36 -4.21 0.05
4.6–4.9 1,835,184 18.48 18 11.921 0.65 -0.44 0.08 0.25 -2.05 0.12
5–5.3 1,216,401 12.25 33 21.854 1.78 0.58 -0.12 0.20 3.53 0.33
5.4–5.7 770,366 7.76 32 21.192 2.73 1.00 -0.16 0.20 5.84 0.51
5.8–6.2 493,239 4.97 40 26.490 5.33 1.67 -0.26 0.18 10.47 1.00
6.3–7 185,713 1.87 8 5.298 2.83 1.04 -0.04 0.36 2.96 0.53
7.1–8 61,325 0.62 5 3.311 5.36 1.68 -0.03 0.45 3.75 1.01 13.78 43.06
8.1–11.5 34,257 0.34 1 0.662 1.92 0.65 0.00 1.00 0.65 0.36
SPI
0–27,432.4 8,389,309 84.97 84 55.629 0.65 -0.42 1.08 0.16 -9.19 0.05
27,432.4–164,594.4 1,039,060 10.52 32 21.192 2.01 0.70 -0.13 0.20 4.15 0.15
164,594.4–411,486.2 260,354 2.64 21 13.907 5.27 1.66 -0.12 0.24 7.59 0.38
411,486.2–768,107.5 106,583 1.08 8 5.298 4.91 1.59 -0.04 0.36 4.50 0.36
768,107.5–1,234,458.6 45,996 0.47 2 1.325 2.84 1.04 -0.01 0.71 1.48 0.21
1,234,458.6–1,810,539.3 18,981 0.19 4 2.649 13.78 2.62 -0.02 0.51 5.23 1.00
1,810,539.3–2,496,349.6 7739 0.08 0 0.000 0.00 None 0.00 None None 0.00
2,496,349.6–3,319,322 3518 0.04 0 0.000 0.00 None 0.00 None None 0.00 5.31 16.60
3,319,322–4,745,807.5 1791 0.02 0 0.000 0.00 None 0.00 None None 0.00
4,745,807.5–6,995,265.5 272 0.00 0 0.000 0.00 None 0.00 None None 0.00
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Table 6 continued
Rainfall (mm)
183–267 49,519 0.50 4 2.65 5.31 1.67 -0.02 0.51 3.34 1.00
267–329 366,418 3.69 26 17.22 4.67 1.54 -0.15 0.22 7.85 0.88
329–375 1,876,230 18.90 35 23.18 1.23 0.20 -0.05 0.19 1.34 0.23
375–409 4,310,056 43.41 62 41.06 0.95 -0.06 0.04 0.17 -0.58 0.18
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
409–434 2,252,289 22.69 19 12.58 0.55 -0.59 0.12 0.25 -2.90 0.10
434–468 701,730 7.07 5 3.31 0.47 -0.76 0.04 0.45 -1.75 0.09
468–514 231,312 2.33 0 0.00 0.00 None 0.02 None None 0.00
514–576 78,768 0.79 0 0.00 0.00 None 0.01 None None 0.00 0.32 1
[576 61,831 0.62 0 0.00 0.00 None 0.01 None None 0.00
Lithology
Cenozoic 3,857,722 38.84 55 36.42 0.94 -0.06 0.04 0.17 -0.61 0.74
Mesozoic 5,604,514 56.43 87 57.62 1.02 0.02 -0.03 0.16 0.29 0.81
Paleozoic 469,735 4.73 9 5.96 1.26 0.23 -0.01 0.34 0.71 1.00
Landuse
Rangeland 9,189,569 92.54 132 87.42 0.94 -0.06 0.52 0.25 -2.36 0.03
Bare land 72,487 0.73 9 5.96 8.17 2.10 -0.05 0.34 6.27 0.23
Forest 592,322 5.96 5 3.31 0.56 -0.59 0.03 0.45 -1.36 0.02
Garden 13,007 0.13 0 0.00 0.00 None 0.00 None None 0.00 35.59 111.23
Residential 23,406 0.24 1 0.66 2.81 1.03 0.00 1.00 1.03 0.08
Irrigation 32,539 0.33 0 0.00 0.00 None 0.00 None None 0.00
Water body 7391 0.07 4 2.65 35.59 3.57 -0.03 0.51 7.10 1.00
NDVI
-0.69 to -0.35 11,325 0.11 5 3.31 29.01 3.37 -0.03 0.45 7.48 1.00 28.70 89.68
-0.34 to -0.18 245,042 2.47 7 4.64 1.88 0.63 -0.02 0.39 1.69 0.06
969
123
Table 6 continued
970
123
-0.17 to -0.13 1,503,258 15.15 17 11.26 0.74 -0.30 0.04 0.26 -1.33 0.03
-0.12 to -0.08 3,142,579 31.67 15 9.93 0.31 -1.16 0.28 0.27 -5.28 0.01
-0.07 to -0.03 2,806,738 28.29 32 21.19 0.75 -0.29 0.09 0.20 -1.92 0.03
-0.02 to 0.05 1,061,917 10.70 22 14.57 1.36 0.31 -0.04 0.23 1.53 0.05
0.06–0.18 332,396 3.35 15 9.93 2.97 1.09 -0.07 0.27 4.25 0.10
0.19–0.33 239,320 2.41 20 13.25 5.49 1.70 -0.12 0.24 7.58 0.19
0.34–0.47 251,095 2.53 16 10.60 4.19 1.43 -0.09 0.26 5.74 0.14
0.48–0.73 328,562 3.31 2 1.32 0.40 -0.92 0.02 0.71 -1.32 0.01
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 971
had the highest frequency ratio value (35.67) followed by bare land and residential areas
with FRs equal to 8.17 and 2.81, respectively. Residential areas that are close to rivers are
the most vulnerable flood areas because of the large population density, economic
resources, and transportation (Jung et al. 2011). The last factor is NDVI. The index ranges
between -1 and ?1 (Pradhan et al. 2010). The class -0.69 to -0.35, which was related to
bare soil and water bodies, had the greatest impact on flooding (FR = 29). Finally, the
following equation was implemented in GIS environment and the flood susceptibility map
(FSM) by FR model was prepared (Eq. 15):
FSMFR ¼ FRSlope þ FRCurvature þ FRDisRiver þ FRAltitude þ FRLanduse þ FRRainfall þ FRSPI
þ FRTWI þ FRLithology þ FRNDVI
ð15Þ
3.2 Flood susceptibility mapping using weights-of-evidence model
Like the FR model, WofE model is used to determine the relationship between flood
occurrences and the classes of conditioning factors, which is shown in Table 6.
Based on C/S(C) values and Table 6, for slope factor, the first class of slope factors
(0–5.7) had the highest value (11.88) and then the second class (5.8–15.9) with the value of
6.53 had positive and significant influences on the floods; however, from slope degree of
16, all the other slope layer classes had negative influences on flooding, which represented
no significant relationship between classes and floods. For the second conditioning factor
or plan curvature, concave (5.53) and flat (0.98) curvature had positive influences on
flooding and convex curvature with a value of -5.92 had a negative influence on flood
occurrences. In the case of elevation factor, like the frequency ratio model, the first four
classes had the greatest influence and the rest had the least influence on the occurrence of
floods. From the height of 2770 m to the top, no occurrence of flood was recorded. The first
class (328–1141 m) with a maximum of 17.41 had the greatest influence on the occurrence
of floods. For the factor of distance from the river, the first class of 0–500 m with 17.52 had
the greatest influence on the occurrence of floods. After the distance of 500 m from the
river, all classes had a negative influence on flooding and the last class of more than
2500 m had the lowest influence (-8.27) on the occurrence of floods. The first four class of
TWI factor had negative weights, which had a negative influence on occurrence of floods,
and the 6 next classes had positive weights, which meant that they had a positive and
significant impact on occurrence of floods. Class 5.8–6.2 (class 7) had the greatest impact,
and class 1.1–3.8 (class 2) had the least impact on the occurrence of floods. For the factor
of SPI, the first class had a weight of -9.19, but classes of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 had positive
impacts on flooding, and from class 6, there was no occurrence of floods. In FR method,
class 6 had the maximum impact on the flooding, while in WofE method, class 3
(164,594–411,486) with weight of 7.59 had the greatest impact on the occurrence of floods.
Another important conditioning factor is rainfall. For the first 3 classes, including 183–267,
267–329, and 329–375 mm, amounts of C/S(C) were 3.34, 7.85, and 1.34, respectively,
which had a greater impact on flooding, and the maximum impact on flooding was of class
267–329 due to having the highest amount of C/S(C). The other three classes of rainfall,
including 375–409, 409–434, and 434–468, had negative impacts on flood occurrences due
to negative values. From the class of 468 mm, no flood was recorded, because, as men-
tioned, with increase in elevation in mountainous area the precipitation would increase.
These areas are placed in the very low flood susceptibility class, and actually, no floods
123
972 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
occur there. Lithology of Haraz area consists of 3 classes of Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and
Paleozoic, and the C/S(C) values are -0.61, 0.29, and 0.71, respectively; hence, Paleozoic
had the greatest effect on flooding in this area. For landuse factor, water bodies, bare lands,
and residential areas had positive impacts and rangeland and forest had a negative impact
on flooding. There was no flood recording in irrigated lands and garden landuse types. For
NDVI factor, 6 classes of 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 had positive impacts on flooding, of which the
maximum impact was of the class 8 or 0.19–0.33 with a value of 7.58. Classes of 3, 4, 5,
and 10 also had a negative impact on flooding, of which the minimum impact was of the
class 4 (-0.12 to -0.08) with a value of -5.28.
Finally, using the following equation in raster calculator of ArcGIS10.1 software, the
final map of flood susceptibility according to WofE model was developed (Eq. 16).
FSMWofE ¼ WofESlope þ WofECurvature þ WofEDisRiver þ WofEAltitude þ WofELanduse
þ WofERainfall þ WofESPI þ WofETWI þ WofELithology þ WofENDVI
ð16Þ
3.3 Flood susceptibility mapping using AHP model
In AHP method, expert opinion was used. When arranging the factors in a hierarchical
order, there is a relative importance of one factor over another factor as pair-wise com-
parison matrix based on Table 3.
In making the pair-wise comparison matrix, each factor against other factors is rated by
assigning relative values between 1 and 9 to it. When the importance of a factor in a row
(vertical axis) is more than that of a factor in a column (horizontal axis), the numbers range
is integers from 1 to 9 and vice versa (Table 7) (Pourghasemi et al. 2012b). Weights for
each conditioning factor which had an influence on flooding were calculated in AHP
extension in ArcGIS10.1 (Table 8). Finally, the flood susceptibility map using AHP model
was prepared by the following equation in GIS.
FSPAHP ¼ SW SR þ CW CR þ RW RR þ AW AR þ LW LR þ PW PR þ SPW SPR þ TWW TWR
þ LiW LiR þ NW NR
ð17Þ
where W is weight of layers and R is the rating (Rahmati et al. 2015b).
CR value is 0 in AHP model. Thus, it represents a reasonable level of compatibility in
pair-wise comparisons that is sufficient for determination of the weights of factors.
Lithology, altitude, NDVI, distance from river, and plan curvature with weights of 0.4,
0.32, 0.3, 0.17, and 0.105, respectively, were found to be importance parameters in
occurrences of flood in the study area, whereas slope angle, rainfall, landuse, TWI, and SPI
with weights of 0.087, 0.075, 0.073, 0.05, and 0.02 received a low degree of importance.
The maximum and minimum weights of layers were of lithology and SPI, respectively.
3.4 Flood susceptibility mapping using FR-AHP hybrid model
In this section, a novel ensemble of FR and AHP has been proposed for flood susceptibility
mapping at Haraz Watershed based on non-questionnaire method. The probability index
for the ensemble method of FR and AHP was calculated and normalized in the range of
probability values (0–1) by dividing each number by its maximum amount.
123
Table 7 The pair-wise comparison matrix
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Slope angle Plan curvature Altitude Distance from river TWI SPI Rainfall Lithology Landuse NDVI
Slope angle 1.00 1 0.25 0.5 2 3 1.5 2 1 2

Curvature = 1.00 0.33 0.5 2 4 2 2 2 3
Altitude = = 1.00 2 7 9 6 7 5 8
River = = = 1.00 4 5 3 4 3 4
TWI = = = = 1.00 3 0.5 1 1 2
SPI = = = = = 1.00 0.25 0.5 0.33 0.5
Rainfall = = = = = = 1.00 3 0.5 3
Lithology = = = = = = = 1.00 0.5 2
Landuse = = = = = = = = 1.00 2
NDVI = = = = = = = = = 1.00
973
123
974
123
Table 8 The factor weights and consistency ratio of the thematic layers
MCDM models Slope angle Plan curvature Altitude Distance from river TWI SPI Rainfall Lithology Landuse NDVI CR
AHP 0.087 0.105 0.32 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.075 0.4 0.073 0.3 0
FR-AHP 0.050 0.011 0.10 0.078 0.046 0.121 0.043 0.004 0.310 0.227 0.041
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Table 9 Selection of the best method for classification of final maps
Methods Categorize methods Number of flooding location Number of non-flooding location
Very low Low Moderate High Very high Very low Low Moderate High Very high
FR Equal interval 0 25 30 5 0 59 1 0 0 0
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Geometrical interval 0 0 0 13 47 25 9 18 8 0
Natural break 0 0 9 17 34 44 13 3 0 0
Quintile 0 0 0 5 55 22 16 11 9 2
WofE Equal interval 0 7 22 24 7 53 7 0 0 0
Natural break 0 0 5 10 45 36 20 4 0 0
Quintile 0 0 0 1 59 20 15 18 4 3
AHP Equal interval 0 0 6 30 24 7 35 14 4 0
Natural break 0 0 1 10 48 22 21 14 3 0
Quintile 0 0 0 8 52 20 16 15 7 3
FR-AHP Equal interval 0 5 21 24 10 9 35 14 2 0
Natural break 1 2 11 15 31 15 24 13 6 2
Quintile 1 2 4 12 41 25 13 8 6 8
975
123
976 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Fig. 5 Flood susceptibility mapping using a FR, b WofE, c AHP, d FR-AHP models
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 977
Fig. 5 continued
123
978 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
The final weights are shown in Table 8. The following equation was used for obtaining
the final map in GIS.
FSMAHP1 ¼ FRSlope WAHP þ FRCurvature WAHP þ FRDisRiver WAHP þ FRAltitude
WAHP þ FRLanduse WAHP þ FRRainfall WAHP þ FRSPI WAHP þ FRTWI
WAHP þ FRLithology WAHP þ FRNDVI WAHP
ð18Þ
CR value was 0.041 in FR model combined with AHP. Landuse, NDVI, SPI, and
altitude with weights of 0.310, 0.227, 0.121, and 0.101, respectively, were found to be
importance parameters in flood occurrences in the Haraz Watershed, whereas distance
from river (0.078), slope angle (0.050), rainfall (0.046), TWI (0.046), plan curvature
(0.011), and lithology (0.0049) had low degrees of importance. The maximum and mini-
mum weights of layers in FR-AHP method were of landuse (0.310) and lithology (0.0049),
respectively.
3.5 Determination of the best method for classification of final maps
In this section, we explain the most accurate classification methods such as equal interval,
geometrical interval, natural break, and quantile for preparing flood susceptibility maps.
Table 10 Flood distribution in predicted flood-susceptible zones

Models Flood-susceptible % Area of % Observed SCAI (flood
zones predicted zones flood per zone density)
FR Very low 52.48 0.00 None

Low 25.91 0.00 None
Moderate 14.51 15.00 0.97
High 5.15 28.33 0.18
Very high 1.95 56.67 0.03
WofE Very low 34.24 0.00 None
Low 32.69 0.00 None
Moderate 19.10 8.33 2.29
High 10.05 16.67 0.60
Very high 3.92 75.00 0.05
AHP Very low 2.37 0.00 None
Low 34.76 0.00 None
Moderate 28.68 1.67 17.21
High 20.18 16.67 1.21
Very high 14.00 80.00 0.18
FR-AHP Very low 19.64 1.67 11.79
Low 20.70 3.33 6.21
Moderate 20.63 6.67 3.10
High 20.06 20.00 1.00
Very high 18.96 68.33 0.28
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 979
For this purpose, the final FSMS prepared using FR, WofE, AHP, and FR-AHP was
overlaid with 30 % of flood locations and non-flood locations (Table 9).
In FR model, for zoning and classification of the final map, the quantile method is
regarded as the most accurate one, because out of 60 flood points (30 % of points), which
were used for validation, 55 points were categorized in the class of very highly susceptible
to flooding and 5 points were placed in the class of highly susceptible. Therefore, this is not
a highly accurate method to categorize flooded and non-flooded areas. But quantile method
categorizes the majority of the area in the highly and very highly susceptible classes. On
the other hand, it reduces the area of non-flooded class. To determine the accuracy of non-
flooded area, out of 211 non-flooded points, 30 % (60 points) were used to determine the
accuracy of classification methods.
Interval method was the most accurate one to classify non-flooded areas. Therefore, in
FR method, to classify the flooded areas, the most applicatory methods, from the most to
the least appropriate methods, respectively, are: quantile [ geometrical interval [ natural
break [ equal interval, while, to determine the non-flooded regions, the respective
assortment is: equal interval [ natural break [ geometrical interval [ quantile. Therefore,
the most authentic method for classification and mapping is natural break of frequency
ratio that has been shown in Fig. 5a.
In WofE method, the respective assortment of different methods to classify the flooded
region is: quantile [ geometrical interval [ natural break [ equal interval, while for flood
points the order is: equal interval [ natural break [ geometrical interval [ quantile.
Hence, the most accurate method to classify the final map is natural break method, which
has been shown in Fig. 5b. As can be seen in Table 9, there is not a noticeable difference
between two methods of geometrical interval and natural break. However, for non-flooded
points, the accuracy of natural break is more than those of other methods.
In AHP method, the ranking of classification methods for flooded points, from the most
appropriate to the least appropriate, is: quantile [ natural break [ geometrical inter-
val [ equal interval, while for non-flooded points the order is: geometrical inter-
val [ natural break [ quantile [ equal interval. Therefore, due to the order of priorities in
the AHP model, the most accurate method to classify flood susceptibility map in Haraz
Watershed is natural break, which is shown in Fig. 5c.
In FR-AHP method, for flooded area, the ranking from the most accurate to the least
accurate methods, respectively, is: quantile [ natural break [ geometrical inter-
val [ equal interval, whereas for non-flooded area this ranking is: geometrical inter-
val [ quantile [ natural break [ equal interval. Therefore, quantile method was the most
accurate one for classification and mapping of flood susceptibility by AHP method, which
is shown in Fig. 5d.
3.6 Comparison of flood susceptibility classes
According to the flood susceptibility maps, there are five susceptibility classes such as very
low, low, moderate, high, and very high. Area comparison of classes for each map is shown
in Table 10. According to FR map that had the highest accuracy in predicting flood
susceptibility, 1.95 % of the total area was placed in very high susceptibility classes;
5.15 % in high class; 14.5 % in moderate class; 25.91 % in low class; and 52.48 % in very
low susceptibility class. For WofE model, the very high, high, moderate, low, and very low
classes were 3.92, 10.05, 19.10, 32.69, and 34.24 %; for AHP model 14, 20.18, 28.68,
34.76, and 2.37 %; and for FR-AHP 18.96, 20.06, 20.63, 20.70, and 19.64 %, respectively.
123
980 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
(a) Succses rate

Cumulative percentage of flooding occurrence
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
FR-AHP(86.19)
20 AHP (95.91)
WofE(98.96)
10
FR(97.07)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flood probability index (%)
(b) Prediction rate

Cumulative percentage of flooding occurrence
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 FR-AHP(84.69)
AHP(94.92)
10 WofE(95.96)
FR(96.57)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flood probability index (%)
Fig. 6 The success and prediction rate curves for flood susceptibility maps; a success rate and b prediction
rate curves (in %)
The ensemble method of FR-AHP estimated very high susceptibility classes more than
other models (18.96 %) followed by AHP (14 %), WofE (3.92 %), and FR (1.95 %).
3.7 Validation of flood susceptibility maps
Validation of the prepared maps is an essential step in the development and identification
of susceptible areas and determination of their quality (Pourghasemi et al. 2012a). So, the
results of models would be inapplicable without their validation (Chung and Fabbri 2003;
Nampak et al. 2014).
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 981
3.7.1 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve
The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) is the most popular method to evaluate the
accuracy of the result due to its generality, comprehensibility, and visual attractiveness
(Tehrany et al. 2013). This method has been used by many researchers (Pradhan and Lee
2010; Pradhan et al. 2011; Mohammady et al. 2012; Pourghasemi et al. 2012a, b; Tehrany
et al. 2013, 2014a, b, 2015a). Prediction and success rates should be evaluated as outcomes
of every modeling process (Pourghasemi et al. 2012a).
For validation of four flood susceptibility maps, the success and prediction rate curves
were used by flood locations and each flood susceptibility map (Tien Bui et al. 2011).
Results of success rate were produced by 70 % of the data (training data) which contains
151 flood points, and prediction map was prepared by 30 % of the data (test data, which
were not used in training) including 60 flood points. As the training data were used for
success rate curve, it was not appropriate to assess the ability of the model (Tien Bui et al.
2011, 2012). The area under the curves of prediction rate shows how well the model
predicts the flood (Lee 2007; Tien Bui et al. 2011).
Results of success rate and prediction rate curves are shown in Fig. 6a, b. In the FR
model, the AUC was 0.9707 and 0.9657 for success and prediction rates, respectively,
which almost represents 97.07 and 96.57 % of accuracy. In contrast, the success and pre-
diction rates were 95.96 and 98.96 %, respectively, in WofE model, whereas for AHP, they
were 95.91 and 94.92 % and in FR-AHP hybrid method, the mentioned rates (success and
prediction) were 86.19 and 84.69 %, respectively. Considering these results, it can be
concluded that the most accurate method for preparing flood susceptibility maps in Haraz
Watershed was FR method, because it had the highest area under the curve and the highest
degree of accuracy (96.57 %) among other methods. The results of this study are consistent
with Lee et al. (2012), Mohammady et al. (2012), Pourtaghi and Pourghasemi (2014), and
Rahmati et al. (2015a) for natural disasters mapping. The lowest degree of accuracy was of
FR-AHP method due to the lowest area under the curve, which is in accordance with
Althuwaynee et al. (2014). Althuwaynee et al. (2014) also applied evidential belief function
model alone and in combination with AHP and logistic regression and found that EBF
model alone had the highest degree of accuracy (82.3 %), and it had the lowest degree of
accuracy (76.5 %) in combination with AHP.
3.8 Seed cell area index (SCAI)
Additionally, to test the reliability of the flood susceptibility maps produced by the FR,
WofE, AHP, and FR-AHP methods, SCAI (Suzen and Doyuran 2004a, b) was carried out
on the classified susceptibility maps and flood validation data as follows:
Area extent of susceptibility class ð%Þ
SCAI ¼ ð19Þ
Flood in each susceptibility class ð%Þ
It is expected that high and very high susceptible classes have small SCAI values and
low and very low susceptible classes have high SCAI values (Aykut and Necdet 2011).
Results of SCAI values for the used four methods are shown in Table 10. The results show
that for very low and low classes, the amount of SCAI is high and for high and very high
classes, it is small. On the other hand, the amount of SCAI from very low class to very high
class is descending.
123
982 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
4 Conclusion
Flood is the most catastrophic event in the world, and it is a serious threat to life. Thus, flood
susceptibility maps are essential and initial steps in reduction of flood damage. In addition,
susceptibility analysis of flood occurrence is one of the most popular topics of research. Due
to lack of information in most catchments, many researchers have used spatial analysis in
GIS for hydrological studies. The use of remote sensing and GIS can be very useful in the
study of hydrology and water resources due to their high accuracy and speed as accuracy
and time are two vital components of flood modeling. Different methodologies have been
examined from the viewpoints of efficiency and reliability to prepare flood susceptibility
maps. This study aimed to assess the proficiency of various methods such as FR, WofE,
AHP, and FR-AHP at Haraz Watershed in Mazandaran Province, Iran. This area was chosen
as a case study because of the high frequency of flooding in north of Iran and high sensitivity
of this area in terms of population and agricultural land. For the performance of these four
models, four main steps were used: flood inventory mapping, preparation of flood-condi-
tioning factors, susceptibility analysis, and validation of the built models. At the first and
second steps, flood inventory map (211 flood locations) was made and randomly divided
into two subsets for testing and validation, respectively, and after that, flood-conditioning
factor was prepared. These conditioning factors were slope angle, plan curvature, elevation,
distance from river, TWI, SPI, rainfall, lithology, landuse, and NDVI. Then, at the third
step, these factors were used to correlate flooding with the each class of conditioning factors
and then assess susceptibility to flooding according to FR, WofE, AHP, and FR-AHP
models. In this research, a spatial resolution of 20*20 square meters was chosen for flood
causative factor as the mapping unit. The most important factors and classes susceptible to
flooding were low elevation (328–1141), low slope (0–5.7), distances of\500 m from the
river, and concave and flat curvature slopes. Another aim of this research was to identify the
most influential causative factors in flood occurrence and rank them based on weight value
in AHP model. According to AHP model, the most important factors in the flooding were
lithology, elevation, NDVI, and distance from the river.
Different methods of maps classification scheme were evaluated, of which natural break
and quantile were the most accurate schemes for FR, AHP, WofE, and FR-AHP, respec-
tively. Then, FSMs were constructed and classified into five categories in order to produce
the susceptibility map. The result of the achieved map represented very low, low, mod-
erate, high, and very high susceptible areas. As a fourth step, success rate and prediction
rate curves were used to determine efficiencies and compare the results of FSMs. The
highest AUC of success rate belonged to WofE model (98.96 %), followed by FR
(97.07 %). In addition, the obtained success rates for AHP and FR-AHP were 95.91 and
86.19 %, respectively. The results showed that WofE model well fitted the training data as
compared with other models. The maximum amount of AUC for prediction rate curve was
of FR model (96.57 %); as a result, this method was the most accurate method for
preparing flood susceptibility map in Haraz Watershed. The AUC for WofE, AHP, and FR-
AHP models was 95.96, 94.92, and 86.19 %, respectively. So, the weakest model for
preparing flood susceptibility maps was hybrid model of FR-AHP. The SCAI values
showed that the produced maps were adequate, because moderate, high, and very high
classes had very low values of SCAI, while very low and low had high values of SCAI.
However, these maps can help decision-makers, planners, water resources organization,
ministry of energy, department of natural resources, and managers to take appropriate
measures to control and mitigate this phenomenon in study area and to prevent
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 983
construction of residential areas in these regions or to consider appropriate measures to

reduce flood damages in the future. As a recommendation, based on literature review, the
accuracy and quality of causative factor have high influences on FSMs; therefore, quality
and accuracy of this factor should be investigated. For the future work, integration of some
machine learning models such as artificial neural network, support vector machine, deci-
sion tree, and naı̈ve Bayes with AHP can be considered.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and editorial comments for
their helpful comments on the primary version of the manuscript.
References
Adiat KAN, Nawawi MNM, Abdullah K (2012) Assessing the accuracy of GIS-based elementary multi
criteria decision analysis as a spatial prediction tool—a case of predicting potential zones of sus-
tainable groundwater resources. J Hydrol 440:75–89
Althuwaynee OF, Pradhan B, Park HJ, Lee JH (2014) A novel ensemble bivariate statistical evidential belief
function with knowledge-based analytical hierarchy process and multivariate statistical logistic
regression for landslide susceptibility mapping. Catena 114:21–36
Alvarado-Aguilar D, Jiménez JA, Nicholls RJ (2012) Flood hazard and damage assessment in the Ebro
Delta (NW Mediterranean) to relative sea level rise. Nat Hazards 62:1301–1321
Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility
mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology 65(1–2):15–31
Aykut A, Necdet T (2011) Mapping erosion susceptibility by a multivariate statistical method: a case study
from the Ayvalık region, NW Turkey. Comput Geosci 37:1515–1524
Bednarik M, Magulová B, Matys M, Marschalko M (2010) Landslide susceptibility assessment of the
KralovanyLiptovsky Mikulá railway case study. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 35(3):162–171
Billa L, Shattri M, Mahmud AR, Ghazali AH (2006) Comprehensive planning and the role of SDSS in flood
disaster management in Malaysia. Dis Prev Manag 15:233–240
Bonham-Carter GF (1991) Integration of geoscientific data using GIS. In: Goodchild MF, Rhind DW,
Maguire DJ (eds) Geographic information systems: principle and applications. Longdom, London
Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for geoscientists: modeling with GIS. In:
Bonham-Carter F (ed) Computer methods in the geosciences. Pergamon, Oxford
Bonham-Carter GF, Agterberg FP, Wright DF (1988) Integration of Geological Datasets for Gold Explo-
ration in Nova Scotia. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 0099-1 112.88/
5411 – 1585$ 02.25/0
Bronstert A (2003) Floods and climate change: interactions and impacts. Risk Anal 23:545–557
Bubeck P, Botzen W, Aerts J (2012) A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood
mitigation behavior. Risk Anal 32:1481–1495
Cevik E, Topal T (2003) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping for a problematic segment of the
natural gas pipeline, Hendek (Turkey). Environ Geol 44(8):949–962
Chang NB, Parvathinathan G, Breeden JB (2008) Combining GIS with fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making
for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. J Environ Manag 87:139–153
Chen YR, Yeh CH, Yu B (2011) Integrated application of the analytic hierarchy process and the geographic
information system for flood risk assessment and flood plain management in Taiwan. Nat Hazards
59(3):1261–1276
Chung CJF, Fabbri AG (2003) Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Nat
Hazards 30:451–472
Cloke H, Pappenberger F (2009) Ensemble flood forecasting: a review. J Hydrol 375(3):613–626
Dahal RK, Hasegawa S, Nonomura A, Yamanaka M, Masuda T, Nishino K (2008) GIS-based weights-of-
evidence modelling of rainfall-induced landslides in small catchments for landslide susceptibility
mapping. Environ Geol 54:311–324
Dai FC, Lee CF, Li J, Xu ZW (2001) Assessment of landslide susceptibility on the natural terrain of Lantau
Island, Hong Kong. Environ Geol 40:381–391
Dang NM, Babel MS, Luong HT (2011) Evaluation of food risk parameters in the Day River Flood
Diversion Area, Red River Delta, Vietnam. Nat Hazards 56:169–194
123
984 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Dawson CW, Abrahart RJ, Shamseldin AY, Wilby RL (2006) Flood estimation at ungauged sites using
artificial neural networks. J Hydrol 319:391–409
Dewan A, Islam MM, Kumamoto T, Nishigaki M (2006) Evaluating flood hazard for landuse planning in
Greater Dhaka of Bangladesh using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Water Resour Manag
21(9):1601–1612
Dewan A et al (2007) Evaluating flood hazard for land-use planning in greater Dhaka of Bangladesh using
remote sensing and GIS techniques. Water Resour Manag 21(9):1601–1612
Donati L, Turrini M (2002) An objective method to rank the importance of the factors predisposing to
landslides with the GIS methodology: application to an area of the Apennines (Valnerina; Perugia,
Italy). Eng Geol 63:277–289
Eisavi V, Karami J, Alimohamadi A, Niknejad SA (2012) Comparison of AHP and FUZZY-AHP in initial
site selection of underground dam at Taleghan watershed. Earth Sci J 85:27–34 [In Persian]
Fernández DS, Lutz MA (2010) Urban flood hazard zoning in Tucumán Province, Argentina, using GIS and
multicriteria decision analysis. Eng Geol 111:90–98
Ghosh S, Carranza EJM, van Westen CJ, Jetten VG, Bhattacharya DN (2011) Selecting and weighting
spatial predictors for empirical modeling of landslide susceptibility in the Darjeeling Himalayas (In-
dia). Geomorphology 131:35–56
Glenn E, Morino K, Nagler P, Murray R, Pearlstein S, Hultine K (2012) Roles of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.)
and capillary rise in salinizing a non-flooding terrace on a flow-regulated desert river. J Arid Environ
79:56–65
Haq M, Akhtar M, Muhammad S, Paras S, Rahmatullah J (2012) Techniques of remote sensing and GIS for
flood monitoring and damage assessment: a case study of Sindh province, Pakistan, Egypt. J Remote
Sens Space Sci 15:135–141
Huang X, Tan H, Zhou J, Yang T, Benjamin A, Wen SW, Li S, Liu A, Li X, Fen S, Li X (2008) Flood
hazard in Hunan province of China: an economic loss analysis. Nat Hazards 47:65–73
Hwang C, Lin M (1987) Group decision making under multiple criteria. Springer, Berlin
Jaafari A, Najafi A, Pourghasemi HR, Rezaeian J, Sattarian A (2014) GIS-based frequency ratio and index
of entropy models for landslide susceptibility assessment in the Caspian forest, northern Iran. Int J
Environ Sci Technol 11(4):909–926
Jung IW, Chang H, Moradkhani H (2011) Quantifying uncertainty in urban flooding analysis considering
hydro-climatic projection and urban development effects. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15(2):617–633
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, Gree-
ce. Sci Total Environ 538:555–563
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
67:251–264
Kisi O, Nia AM, Gosheh MG, Tajabadi MRJ, Ahmadi A (2012) Intermittent streamflow forecasting by using
several data driven techniques. Water Resour Manag 26(2):457–474
Kjeldsen TR (2010) Modelling the impact of urbanization on flood frequency relationships in the UK.
Hydrol Res 41:391–405
Kourgialas NN, Karatzas GP (2011) Flood management and a GIS modelling method to assess flood-hazard
areas—a case study. Hydrol Sci J 56(2):212–225
Kron W (2002) Keynote lecture: flood risk = hazard * exposure * vulnerability. In: Proceedings of the flood
defence. Science Press, New York
Lee S (2007) Comparison of landslide susceptibility maps generated through multiple logistic regression for
three test areas in Korea. Earth Surf Process Landf 32:2133–2148
Lee S, Pradhan B (2007) Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor, Malaysia using frequency ratio and logistic
regression models. Landslides 4:33–41
Lee MJ, Kang JE, Jeon S (2012) Application of frequency ratio model and validation for predictive flooded
area susceptibility mapping using GIS. In: Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS).
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6351414&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.
org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6351414. Accessed 22 July 2012
Liao X, Carin L (2009) Migratory logistic regression for learning concept drift between two data sets with
application to UXO sensing. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 47:1454–1466
Liu J, Li J, Liu J, Ry C (2008) Integrated GIS/AHP-based flood risk assessment: a case study of Huaihe
River Basin in China. J Nat Disasters 17:110–114
Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Wiley, New York
Malczewski J (2006) GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Int J Geogr Inf Sci
20:703–726
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 985
Merz B, Thieken AH, Gocht M (2007) Flood risk mapping at the local scale: concepts and challenges. In:
Flood risk management in Europe. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 231–251
Messner F, Meyer V (2006) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception–challenges for flood damage
research. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 149–167
Miller JR, Ritter DF, Kochel RC (1990) Morphometric assessment of lithologic controls on drainage basin
evolution in the Crawford Upland, south-central Indiana. Am J Sci 290:569–599
Mohammady M, Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B (2012) Landslide susceptibility mapping at Golestan Pro-
vince, Iran: a comparison between frequency ratio, Dempster-Shafer, and weights-of-evidence models.
J Asian Earth Sci 61:221–236
Moore ID, Grayson RB, Ladson AR (1991) Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomor-
phological, and biological applications. Hydrol Process 5:3–30
Naghibi SA, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghie ZS, Rezaei A (2014) Groundwater qanat potential mapping using
frequency ratio and Shannon’s entropy models in the Moghan Watershed, Iran. Earth Sci Inform.
doi:10.1007/s12145-014-0145-7
Nampak H, Pradhan B, Manap MA (2014) Application of GIS based data driven evidential belief function
model to predict groundwater potential zonation. J Hydrol 513:283–300
Norouzi G, Taslimi M (2012) The impact of flood damages on production of Iran’s Agricultural Sector.
Middle East J Sci Res 12:921–926
Ohlmacher GC, Davis JC (2003) Using multiple logistic regression and GIS technology to predict landslide
hazard in northeast Kansas, USA. Eng Geol 69:331–343
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
Ozdemir A, Altural T (2013) A comparative study of frequency ratio, weights of evidence and logistic
regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping: Sultan Mountains, SW Turkey. J Asian Earth
Sci 64(5):180–197
Paquette J, Lowry J (2012) Flood hazard modelling and risk assessment in the Nadi River Basin, Fiji, using
GIS and MCDA. S Pac J Nat Appl Sci 30:33–43
Patel DP, Srivastava PK (2013) Flood hazards mitigation analysis using remote sensing and GIS: corre-
spondence with town planning scheme. Water Resour Manag 27:2353–2368
Pourghasemi HR, Beheshtirad M (2014) Assessment of a data-driven evidential belief function model and
GIS for groundwater potential mapping in the Koohrang Watershed, Iran. Geocarto Int 30:662–685
Pourghasemi HR, Mohammady M, Pradhan B (2012a) Landslide susceptibility mapping using index of
entropy and conditional probability models in GIS: Safarood Basin, Iran. Catena 97:71–84
Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C (2012b) Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy
process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Nat Hazards
63(2):965–996
Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C (2012c) Remote sensing data derived parameters and its use in
landslide susceptibility assessment using Shannon’s entropy and GIS. Appl Mech Mater 225:486–491
Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C, Mohammadi M, Moradi HR (2013a) Application of weights-of-
evidence and certainty factor models and their comparison in landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz
watershed, Iran. Arab J Geosci 6:2351–2365
Pourghasemi HR, Moradi HR, Fatemi Aghda SM (2013b) Landslide susceptibility mapping by binary
logistic regression, analytical hierarchy process, and statistical index models and assessment of their
performances. Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0728-5
Pourtaghi ZS, Pourghasemi HR (2014) GIS-based groundwater spring potential assessment and mapping in
the Birjand Township, southern Khorasan Province, Iran. Hydrogeol J. doi:10.1007/s10040-013-1089-
6
Pradhan B, Lee S (2010) Delineation of landslide hazard areas on Penang Island, Malaysia, by using
frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models. Environ Earth Sci
60:1037–1054
Pradhan B, Youssef A (2011) A 100-year maximum flood susceptibility mapping using integrated hydro-
logical and hydrodynamic models: Kelantan River Corridor, Malaysia. J Flood Risk Manag 4:189–202
Pradhan B, Oh HJ, Buchroithner M (2010) Weights-of-evidence model applied to landslide susceptibility
mapping in a tropical hilly area. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 1:199–223
Pradhan B, Mansor S, Pirasteh S, Buchroithner M (2011) Landslide hazard and risk analyses at a landslide
prone catchment area using statistical based geospatial model. Int J Remote Sens 32(14):4075–4087
Rahmati O, Nazari Samani A, Mahdavi M, Pourghasemi HR, Zeinivand H (2014) Groundwater potential
mapping at Kurdistan region of Iran using analytic hierarchy process and GIS. Arab J Geosci. doi:10.
1007/s12517-014-1668-4
123
986 Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987
Rahmati O, Pourghasemi HR, Zeinivand H (2015a) Flood susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio and
weights-of-evidence models in the Golastan Province, Iran. Geocarto Int. doi:10.1080/10106049.2015.
1041559
Rahmati O, Zeinivand H, Besharat M (2015b) Flood hazard zoning in Yasooj region, Iran, using GIS and
multi-criteria decision analysis. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk. doi:10.1080/19475705.2015.1045043
Regmi AD, Devkota KC, Yoshida K, Pradhan B, Pourghasemi HR, Kumamoto T, Akgun A (2013)
Application of frequency ratio, statistical index, and weights-of-evidence models and their comparison
in landslide susceptibility mapping in Central Nepal Himalaya. Arab J Geosci 7(2):725–742
Rozos D, Bathrellos GD, Skillodimou HD (2011) Comparison of the implementation of rock engineering
system and analytic hierarchy process methods, upon landslide susceptibility mapping, using GIS: a
case study from the Eastern Achaia County of Peloponnesus, Greece. Environ Earth Sci 63:49–63
Saaty TL (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York
Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with analytic hierarchy process. RWS
Publications, Pittsburgh
Sahoo G, Schladow S, Reuter J (2009) Forecasting stream water temperature using regression analysis,
artificial neural network, and chaotic non-linear dynamic models. J Hydrol 378(3):325–342
Scheuer S, Haase D, Meyer V (2011) Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating economic,
social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: from a starting point view towards
an end point view of vulnerability. Nat Hazards 58:731–751
Smith K (2001) Environmental hazards assessing risk and reducing disaster, 3rd edn. Routledge 11new
fetter lane, London
Solin L’ (2012) Spatial variability in the flood vulnerability of urban areas in the headwater basins of
Slovakia. J Flood Risk Manag 5:303–320
Suzen ML, Doyuran V (2004a) HA comparison of the GIS based landslide susceptibility assessment
methods: multivariate versus bivariate. Environ Geol 45:665–679
Suzen ML, Doyuran V (2004b) Data driven bivariate landslide susceptibility assessment using geographical
information systems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment, Turkey. Eng Geol 71:303–352
Talei A, Chua LHC, Quek C (2010) A novel application of a neuro-fuzzy computational technique in event-
based rainfall–runoff modeling. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):7456–7468
Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2013) Spatial prediction of flood susceptible areas using rule based
decision tree (DT) and a novel ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in GIS. J Hydrol
504:69–79
Tehrany MS, Lee MJ, Pradhan B, Jebur MN, Lee S (2014a) Flood susceptibility mapping using integrated
bivariate and multivariate statistical models. Environ Earth Sci 72(10):4001–4015
Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2014b) Flood susceptibility mapping using a novel ensemble weights-
of-evidence and support vector machine models in GIS. J Hydrol 512:332–343
Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2015a) Flood susceptibility analysis and its verification using a novel
ensemble support vector machine and frequency ratio method. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess
29:1149–1165
Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Mansor S, Ahmad N (2015b) Flood susceptibility assessment using GIS-based
support vector machine model with different kernel types. Catena 125:91–101
Tien Bui D, Lofman O, Revhaug I, Dick O (2011) Landslide susceptibility analysis in the Hoa Binh
province of Vietnam using statistical index and logistic regression. Nat Hazards 59:1413–1444
Tien Bui D, Pradhan B, Lofman O, Revhaug I, Dick OB (2012) spatial prediction of landslide hazards in
Hoa Binh province (Vietnam): a comparative assessment of the efficacy of evidential belief functions
and fuzzy logic models. Catena 96:28–40
Tunusluoglu M, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu H, Sonmez H (2008) Extraction of potential debris source areas
by logistic regression technique: a case study from Barla, Besparmak and Kapi mountains (NW
Taurids, Turkey). Environ Geol 54:9–22
Van Westen CJ, Rengers N, Soeters R (2003) Use of geomorphological information in indirect landslide
susceptibility assessment. Nat Hazards 30:399–419
[WHO] World Health Organization (2003) World Disasters Report, Chapter 8: Disaster data: key trends and
statistics. http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/89755/2003/43800-WDR2003_En.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
Xu C, Xu X, Dai F, Xiao J, Tan X, Yuan R (2012) Landslide hazard mapping using GIS and weight of
evidence model in Qingshui river watershed of 2008 Wenchuan earthquake struck region. J Earth Sci
23:97–120
Yalcin A, Reis S, Aydinoglu AC, Yomralioglu T (2011) A GIS-based comparative study of frequency ratio,
analytical hierarchy process, bivariate statistics and logistics regression methods for landslide sus-
ceptibility mapping in Trabzon, NE Turkey. Catena 85(3):274–287
123
Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987 987
Yossef A, Pradhan B, Sefry S (2016) Flash flood susceptibility assessment in Jeddah city (Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia) using bivariate and multivariate statistical Models. Environ Earth Sci 75:12
Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Hassan AM (2011) Flash flood risk estimation along the St. Katherine road,
southern Sinai, Egypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imagery. Environ Earth Sci
62:611–623
Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Jebur MN, El-Harbi HM (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping using ensemble
bivariate and multivariate statistical models in Fayfa area, Saudi Arabia. Environ Earth Sci
73:3745–3761
Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Pourghasemi HR, Abdullahi S (2015) Landslide susceptibility assessment at Wadi
Jawrah Basin, Jizan region, Saudi Arabia using two bivariate models in GIS. Geosci J. doi:10.1007/
s12303-014-0065-z
Yu J, Qin X, Larsen O (2013) Joint Monte Carlo and possibilistic simulation for flood damage assessment.
Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27(3):725–735
Zou Q, Zhou J, Zhou C, Song L, Guo J (2013) Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair
analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27(2):525–546
123

Iran 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iran 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nat Hazards (2016) 83:947–987

A GIS-based flood susceptibility assessment and its

Khabat Khosravi1 • Ebrahim Nohani2 • Edris Maroufinia3 •

Hamid Reza Pourghasemi4

& Hamid Reza Pourghasemi

Keywords Flood susceptibility Frequency ratio (FR) Weights-of-evidence (WofE)

Flood susceptibility mapping in Haraz Watershed, Iran

Flood inventory map

Flood conditioning factors

Slope Angle Validation using AUC

IRS Imagery Landuse & NDVI

Model 1: FR Model 2: WofE Model 3: AHP

Flood Susceptibility maps

Fig. 2 Methodological flowchart adopted in Haraz Watershed

2.1 Flood inventory mapping

2.2 Flood-conditioning factors

Determination of flood-conditioning factors is essential for flood susceptibility mapping

SPI ¼ As tan b ð2Þ

Table 1 Selection of the best

2.3 Flood susceptibility modeling

2.3.1 Frequency ratio model

2.3.2 Weights-of-evidence model (WofE)

Table 2 Lithology of the Haraz Watershed

Undifferentiated quaternary deposits Q

Lithology Code Era

Rocks, marl, conglomerate, Paleocene Pecf

probability of flooding in any class of conditioning factors would be obtained. Mathe-

Wfinal ¼ ðC=SðCÞÞ ð11Þ

2.3.3 Analytical hierarchy process model

Table 3 Scale of preference between two parameters in AHP (Saaty 1994)

1 Equally Two activities contribute equally to the objective

2.3.4 Ensemble of frequency ratio and AHP (FR-AHP) model

river weight weight

normalization of all independent parameters is necessary as it facilitates the final analysis

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Flood susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio model

3.2 Flood susceptibility mapping using weights-of-evidence model

3.3 Flood susceptibility mapping using AHP model

3.4 Flood susceptibility mapping using FR-AHP hybrid model

Slope angle 1.00 1 0.25 0.5 2 3 1.5 2 1 2

3.5 Determination of the best method for classification of final maps

Table 10 Flood distribution in predicted flood-susceptible zones

FR Very low 52.48 0.00 None

3.6 Comparison of flood susceptibility classes

(a) Succses rate

Flood probability index (%)

(b) Prediction rate

3.7 Validation of flood susceptibility maps

3.7.1 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve

3.8 Seed cell area index (SCAI)

construction of residential areas in these regions or to consider appropriate measures to

You might also like