دوره 9، شماره 17 - ( بهار و تابستان 1397 )
جلد 9 شماره 17 صفحات 81-67 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Razavi Termeh S V, Pourghasemi H R, Alidadganfard F. (2018). Flood Inundation Susceptibility Mapping using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and TOPSIS Decision Making Methods and Weight of Evidence Statistical Model (Case Study: Jahrom Township, Fars Province). J Watershed Manage Res. 9(17), 67-81. doi:10.29252/jwmr.9.17.67
URL: http://jwmr.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-748-fa.html
URL: http://jwmr.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-748-fa.html
رضوی ترمه وحید، پورقاسمی حمیدرضا، علی دادگان فرد فاطمه. تهیه‌ی نقشه پتانسیل سیل گیری با استفاده از روش‌های تصمیم‌گیری تحلیل سلسله مراتبی و تاپسیس و مدل آماری وزن واقعه (مطالعه موردی: شهرستان جهرم، استان فارس)
پژوهشنامه مديريت حوزه آبخيز 1397; 9 (17) :81-67 10.29252/jwmr.9.17.67
چکیده: (5465 مشاهده)
سیلاب یکی از رایج‌ترین بلایای طبیعی است که هرساله باعث خسارت‌های مالی و جانی فراوانی می‌گردد. لذا وجود نقشه‌های حساسیت و آسیب‌پذیری بهمنظور مدیریت جامع سیلاب جهت کاهش اثرات مخرب آن امری ضروری است. بنابراین هدف از تحقیق حاضر، تهیه‌ی نقشه پتانسیل سیلگیری در شهرستان جهرم، استان فارس با استفاده از روش‌های تصمیم‌گیری چند- معیاره تحلیل سلسله مراتبی (AHP) و تاپسیس و مدل آماری وزن واقعه (WOE) و مقایسه‌ی دقت آن‌ها می‌باشد. درمجموع 53 محل وقوع سیل در منطقه مورد مطالعه مشخص، که 35 محل وقوع سیل به‌طور تصادفی جهت مدل‌سازی و 16 محل باقیمانده بهمنظور ارزیابی مدل‌ها مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. درمجموع 9 عامل که بر روی وقوع سیلگیری اثر می‌گذارند، در نظر گرفته شد و نقشه‌های آن در محیط ArcGIS آماده گردید. این عوامل شامل درجه شیب، شکل شیب، ارتفاع، شاخص رطوبت توپوگرافی (TWI)، شاخص توان آبراهه (SPI)، فاصله از رودخانه، کاربری اراضی، بارندگی و سنگشناسی می‌باشد. پس از تهیه‌ی نقشه‌های پتانسیل سیل با استفاده از روش‌های مذکور، جهت ارزیابی نتایج از منحنی تشخیص عملکرد نسبی (ROC) استفاده گردید. سطح زیر منحنی (AUC) به‌دست‌آمده از منحنی تشخیص عملکرد نسبی، نشان‌دهنده‌ی دقت 68، 70 و 86 درصد بهترتیب برای مدل‌های AHP، تاپسیس و مدل آماری وزن واقعه می‌باشد. نتایج به‌دست‌آمده نشان‌دهنده‌ی دقت بالای مدل‌های آماری در مقایسه با مدل‌های تصمیم‌گیری و مبتنی بر کارشناسی می‌باشد. نتایج این مطالعه می‌تواند برای مدیران، محققان و طراحان بهمنظور مدیریت مناطق آسیب‌پذیر سیل و کاهش خسارات آن مفید باشد.
واژه‌های کلیدی: آسیب‌پذیری سیلاب، فرآیند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی (AHP)، روش تاپسیس، مدل وزن واقعه (WOE)، سیستم اطلاعات جغرافیایی (GIS)
نوع مطالعه: پژوهشي |
موضوع مقاله:
بلايای طبيعی (سيل، خشکسالی و حرکت های توده ای)
دریافت: 1395/10/28 | پذیرش: 1396/3/8
دریافت: 1395/10/28 | پذیرش: 1396/3/8
فهرست منابع
1. Akgün, A. and F. Bulut. 2007. GIS-based landslide susceptibility for Arsin-Yomra (Trabzon, North Turkey) region. Environmental Geology, 51(8): 1377-1387. [DOI:10.1007/s00254-006-0435-6]
2. Alvarado-Aguilar, D., J.A. Jime'nez and R.J. Nicholls. 2012. Flood hazard and damage assessment in the Ebro Delta (NW Mediterranean) to relative sea level rise. Nat Hazards 62: 1301-1321. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-012-0149-x]
3. Billa, L., M. Shattri, A.R. Mahmud and A.H.Ghazali. 2006. Comprehensive planning and the role of SDSS in flood disaster management in Malaysia. Disaster Prevent Managment 15: 233-240. [DOI:10.1108/09653560610659775]
4. Bonham-Carter, G. 1991. Integration of geoscientific data using GIS. Geographic information systems: principle and applications. Longdom, London, 171-184.
5. Bonham-Carter, G.F. 1994. Geographic Information Systems for geoscientists-modeling with GIS. Computer methods in the geoscientists, 13, 398.
6. Bubeck, P., W.J. Botzen and J.C. Aerts. 2012. A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Analysis, 32(9): 1481-1495. [DOI:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01783.x]
7. Chau, K., Wu, C., and Li, Y. 2005. Comparison of several flood forecasting models in Yangtze River. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 10(6): 485-491. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2005)10:6(485)]
8. Chen, Y.R., C.H. Yeh and B. Yu. 2011. Integrated application of the analytic hierarchy process and the geographic information system for flood risk assessment and flood plain management in Taiwan. Natural Hazards, 59(3): 1261-1276. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-011-9831-7]
9. Cheng, S., C.W. Chan and G.H. Huang. 2002. Using multiple criteria decision analysis for supporting decisions of Solid Waste Management Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 37(6): 975-990. [DOI:10.1081/ESE-120004517]
10. Cloke, H. and F. Pappenberger. 2009. Ensemble flood forecasting: a review. Journal of Hydrology, 375(3): 613-626. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.005]
11. Darabi, H., K. Shahedi and M. Mardian. 2016. Mapping possibility hazard and sensivity flood using frequency ratio in the watershed poul doab shazand. Journal of Watershed Engineering and Management, 8(1): 68-79 (In Persian).
12. Dang, N.M., M.S. Babel and H.T. Luong. 2011. Evaluation of food risk parameters in the day river flood diversion area, Red River delta, Vietnam. Natural Hazards, 56(1): 169-194. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-010-9558-x]
13. Dawson, C.W., R.J. Abrahart, A.Y. Shamseldin and R.L. Wilby. 2006. Flood estimation at ungauged sites using artificial neural networks Journal of Hydrology, 319(1): 391-409. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.032]
14. Dong, S. 2016. Comparisons between different multi-criteria decision analysis techniques for disease susceptibility mapping. Student Thesis Series INES.
15. Fernandez, D. and M. Lutz. 2010. Urban flood hazard zoning in Tucumán Province, Argentina, using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Engineering Geology, 111(1): 90-98. [DOI:10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.12.006]
16. Hu, Z. and C. Lo. 2007. Modeling urban growth in Atlanta using logistic regression. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 31(6): 667-688. [DOI:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2006.11.001]
17. Huang, X., H. Tan, J. Zhou, T. Yang, A. Benjamin, S.W. Wen and S. Fen. 2008. Flood hazard in Hunan province of China: an economic loss analysis. Natural Hazards, 47(1): 65-73. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-007-9197-z]
18. Hwang, C. and K. Yoon. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making, in lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems 186: Springer-Verlag, Berlin. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9]
19. Hwang, C.L. and M.J. Lin. 2012. Group decision making under multiple criteria: methods and applications (Vol. 281): Springer Science and Business Media.
20. Jaafari, A., A. Najafi, H. Pourghasemi, J. Rezaeian and A. Sattarian. 2014. GIS-based frequency ratio and index of entropy models for landslide susceptibility assessment in the Caspian forest, northern Iran. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 11(4): 909-926. [DOI:10.1007/s13762-013-0464-0]
21. Kazakis, N., I. Kougias and T. Patsialis. 2015. Assessment of flood hazard areas at a regional scale using an index-based approach and Analytical Hierarchy Process: Application in Rhodope-Evros region, Greece. Science of the Total Environment, 538: 555-563. [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.055]
22. Khosravi, K., E. Nohani, E. Maroufinia and H.R. Pourghasemi. 2016. 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. Natural Hazards, 1-41. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-016-2357-2]
23. Kia, M.B., S. Pirasteh, B. Pradhan, A.R. Mahmud, W.N.A. Sulaiman and A. Moradi. 2012. An artificial neural network model for flood simulation using GIS: Johor River Basin, Malaysia. Environmental earth sciences, 67(1): 251-264. [DOI:10.1007/s12665-011-1504-z]
24. Lee, M.J., J.E. Kang and S. Jeon. 2012. Application of frequency ratio model and validation for predictive flooded area susceptibility mapping using GIS. Paper presented at the 2012 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. [DOI:10.1109/IGARSS.2012.6351414]
25. Liu, J., J. Li, J. Liu and R. Cao. 2008. Integrated GIS/AHP-based flood risk assessment: a case study of Huaihe River Basin in China. J Nat Disasters, 17(6): 110-114.
26. Malczewski, J. 2006. GIS‐based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(7): 703-726. [DOI:10.1080/13658810600661508]
27. Miller, J.R. 1990. Morphometric assessment of lithologic controls on drainage basin evolution in the crawford upland, south-central indiana jerry r. miller, dale f. ritter,* and r. craig kochel American Journal of Science, 290: 569-599. [DOI:10.2475/ajs.290.5.569]
28. Mohammady, M., H.R. Pourghasemi and B. Pradhan. 2012. Landslide susceptibility mapping at Golestan Province, Iran: a comparison between frequency ratio, Dempster-Shafer and weights-of-evidence models. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 6: 221-236. [DOI:10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.10.005]
29. Moore, I.D., R. Grayson and A. Ladson. 1991. Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological and biological applications. Hydrological processes 5(1): 3-30. [DOI:10.1002/hyp.3360050103]
30. Mukerji, A., C. Chatterjee and N.S. Raghuwanshi. 2009. Flood forecasting using ANN, neuro-fuzzy, and neuro-GA models Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 14(6): 647-652. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000040]
31. Nampak, H., B. Pradhan and M.A. Manap. 2014. Application of GIS based data driven evidential belief function model to predict groundwater potential zonation. Journal of Hydrology, 513: 283-300. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.053]
32. Norouzi, G. and M. Taslimi. 2012. The impact of flood damages on production of Iran's Agricultural Sector. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 12: 921-926.
33. Paquette, J. and J. Lowry. 2013. Flood hazard modelling and risk assessment in the Nadi River Basin, Fiji, using GIS and MCDA. The South Pacific Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences, 30(1): 33-43. [DOI:10.1071/SP12003]
34. Poli, S., and Sterlacchini, S. 2007. Landslide representation strategies in susceptibility studies using weights-of-evidence modeling technique. Natural Resources Research, 16(2): 121-134. [DOI:10.1007/s11053-007-9043-8]
35. Pourghasemi, H.R., B. Pradhan and C. Gokceoglu. 2012. Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran Natural Hazards, 63(2): 965-996. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-012-0217-2]
36. Pourghasemi, H., H. Moradi and S.F. Aghda. 2013. Landslide susceptibility mapping by binary logistic regression, analytical hierarchy process, and statistical index models and assessment of their performances Natural Hazards, 69(1): 749-779. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-013-0728-5]
37. Pourghasemi, H., H. Moradi and S.F. Aghda. 2013. Landslide susceptibility mapping by binary logistic regression, analytical hierarchy process, and statistical index models and assessment of their performances, Natural Hazards, 69(1): 749-779. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-013-0728-5]
38. Pourtaghi, Z.S. and H.R. Pourghasemi. 2014. GIS-based groundwater spring potential assessment and mapping in the Birjand Township, southern Khorasan Province, Iran. Hydrogeology Journal, 22(3): 643-662. [DOI:10.1007/s10040-013-1089-6]
39. Pradhan, B. and A. Youssef. 2011. A 100‐year maximum flood susceptibility mapping using integrated hydrological and hydrodynamic models: Kelantan River Corridor, Malaysia. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 4(3): 189-202. [DOI:10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01103.x]
40. Rahmati, O., H.R. Pourghasemi and H. Zeinivand. 2016. Flood susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio and weights-of-evidence models in the Golastan Province, Iran. Geocarto International, 31(1): 42-70. [DOI:10.1080/10106049.2015.1041559]
41. Regmi, A.D., K.C. Devkota, K.Yoshida, B. Pradhan, H.R. Pourghasemi, T. Kumamotoand A. Akgun. 2014. Application of frequency ratio, statistical index, and weights-of-evidence models and their comparison in landslide susceptibility mapping in Central Nepal Himalaya. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7(2): 725-742. [DOI:10.1007/s12517-012-0807-z]
42. Saaty, T.L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation: McGraw-Hill, New York London.
43. Saaty, T.L. 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48(1): 9-26. [DOI:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I]
44. Sattari, M.H., M. Pouraza and R. Mirabassi NajafAbadi, 2016. Forecasting floods hourly river aharchai using of machine learning techniques Journal of Watershed Engineering and Management, 8(1): 115-127 (In Persian).
45. Scheuer, S., D. Haase and V. Meyer. 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. Natural Hazards, 58(2): 731-751. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-010-9666-7]
46. Şener, Ş., E. Sener and R. Karagüzel. 2011. Solid waste disposal site selection with GIS and AHP methodology: a case study in Senirkent-Uluborlu (Isparta) Basin, Turkey. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 173(1-4): 533-554. [DOI:10.1007/s10661-010-1403-x]
47. Solín, Ľ. 2012. Spatial variability in the flood vulnerability of urban areas in the headwater basins of Slovakia. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 5(4): 303-320. [DOI:10.1111/j.1753-318X.2012.01153.x]
48. Srivastava, O. S., D. Denis, S.K. Srivastava, M. Kumar and N. Kumar. 2014. Morphometric analysis of a Semi Urban Watershed, trans Yamuna, draining at Allahabad using Cartosat (DEM) data and GIS International Journal of Engineering Science, 3: 71-79.
49. Tehrany, M.S., M.J., Lee, B. Pradhan, M. N. Jebur and S. Lee. 2014. Flood susceptibility mapping using integrated bivariate and multivariate statistical models. Environmental earth sciences, 72(10): 4001-4015. [DOI:10.1007/s12665-014-3289-3]
50. Tehrany, M.S., B. Pradhan and M.N. Jebur. 2013. Spatial prediction of flood susceptible areas using rule based decision tree (DT) and a novel ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in GIS, Journal of Hydrology, 504: 69-79. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.09.034]
51. Tehrany, M.S., B. Pradhan and M.N. Jebur. 2015. Flood susceptibility analysis and its verification using a novel ensemble support vector machine and frequency ratio method. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 29(4): 1149-1165. [DOI:10.1007/s00477-015-1021-9]
52. Tierney, K.J., M.K. Lindell and R.W. Perry. 2001. Facing the unexpected: Disaster preparedness and response in the United States: Joseph Henry Press.
53. Van Westen, C., N. Rengers and R. Soeters. 2003. Use of geomorphological information in indirect landslide susceptibility assessment Natural Hazards, 30(3): 399-419. [DOI:10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000007097.42735.9e]
54. Wu, S.J., H.C. Lien and C.H. Chang. 2010. Modeling risk analysis for forecasting peak discharge during flooding prevention and warning operation. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 24(8): 1175-1191. [DOI:10.1007/s00477-010-0436-6]
55. Xu, C., X. Xu, F. Dai, J. Xiao, X. Tan and R.Yuan. 2012. Landslide hazard mapping using GIS and weight of evidence model in Qingshui river watershed of 2008 Wenchuan earthquake struck region. Journal of Earth Science, 23: 97-120. [DOI:10.1007/s12583-012-0236-7]
56. Ying, X., G.M. Zeng, G.Q. Chen, L. Tang, K.L. Wang and D.Y. Huang. 2007. Combining AHP with GIS in synthetic evaluation of eco-environment quality-a case study of Hunan Province, China. Ecological modelling, 209(2): 97-109. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.06.007]
57. Youssef, A.M., B. Pradhan, H.R. Pourghasemi and S. Abdullahi. 2015. Landslide susceptibility assessment at Wadi Jawrah Basin, Jizan region, Saudi Arabia using two bivariate models in GIS Geosciences Journal, 19(3): 449-469. [DOI:10.1007/s12303-014-0065-z]
58. Zhu, C. and X. Wang. 2009. Landslide susceptibility mapping: a comparison of information and weights-of-evidence methods in Three Gorges Area. Paper presented at the Environmental Science and Information Application Technology, 2009. ESIAT 2009. International Conference on. [DOI:10.1109/ESIAT.2009.187]
59. Zou, Q., J. Zhou, C. Zhou, L. Song and J. Guo. 2013. Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 27(2): 525-546. [DOI:10.1007/s00477-012-0598-5]
ارسال پیام به نویسنده مسئول
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
