PMID- 35713716
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20220621
LR  - 20220621
IS  - 1573-2959 (Electronic)
IS  - 0167-6369 (Linking)
VI  - 194
IP  - 7
DP  - 2022 Jun 17
TI  - AHP and TOPSIS based flood risk assessment- a case study of the Navsari City, 
      Gujarat, India.
PG  - 509
LID - 10.1007/s10661-022-10111-x [doi]
AB  - Flooding is one of the major natural catastrophic disasters that causes massive 
      environmental and socioeconomic destruction. The magnitude of losses due to 
      floods has prompted researchers to focus more on robust and comprehensive 
      modeling approaches for alleviating flood damages. Recently developed 
      multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods are being widely used to construct 
      decision-making process more participatory, rational, and efficient. In this 
      study, two statistical MCDM approaches, namely the analytical hierarchy process 
      (AHP) and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution 
      (TOPSIS), have been employed to generate flood risk maps together with hazard and 
      vulnerability maps in a GIS framework for Navsari city in Gujarat, India, to 
      identify the vulnerable areas that are more susceptible to inundation during 
      floods. The study area was divided into 10 sub areas (i.e., NC1 to NC10) to 
      appraise the degree of flood hazard, vulnerability and risk intensities in terms 
      of areal coverage and categorized under 5 intensity classes, viz., very low, low, 
      moderate, high, and very high. A total of 14 flood indicators, seven each for 
      hazard (i.e., elevation, slope, drainage density, distance to river, rainfall, 
      soil, and flow accumulation) and vulnerability (i.e., population density, female 
      population, land use, road network density, household, distance to hospital, and 
      literacy rate) were considered for evaluating the flood risk. Flood risk coverage 
      evaluated from the two approaches were compared with the flood extent computed 
      from the actual flood data collected at 36 random locations. Results revealed 
      that the TOPSIS approach estimated more precise flood risk coverage than the AHP 
      approach, yielding high R(2) values, i.e., 0.78 to 0.95 and low RMSE values, 
      i.e., 0.95 to 0.43, for all the 5 risk intensity classes. The sub areas 
      identified under "very high" and "high" risk intensity classes (i.e., NC1, NC4, 
      NC6, NC7, NC8, and NC10) call for immediate flood control measures with a view to 
      palliate the extent of flood risk and consequential damages. The study 
      demonstrates the potential of AHP and TOPSIS integrated with GIS towards precise 
      identification of flood-prone areas for devising effective flood management 
      strategies.
CI  - (c) 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
FAU - Pathan, Azazkhan Ibrahimkhan
AU  - Pathan AI
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0002-5858-2934
AD  - Department of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of 
      Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India. pathanazaz02@gmail.com.
FAU - Girish Agnihotri, Prasit
AU  - Girish Agnihotri P
AD  - Department of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of 
      Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India.
FAU - Said, Saif
AU  - Said S
AD  - Department of Civil Engineering, Aligarh Muslim University, Uttar Pradesh, 
      Aligarh, India.
FAU - Patel, Dhruvesh
AU  - Patel D
AD  - Department of Civil Engineering, Pandit Deena Dayal Energy University, 
      Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20220617
PL  - Netherlands
TA  - Environ Monit Assess
JT  - Environmental monitoring and assessment
JID - 8508350
SB  - IM
MH  - *Analytic Hierarchy Process
MH  - Environmental Monitoring/methods
MH  - *Floods
MH  - India
MH  - Risk Assessment
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - AHP
OT  - Flood hazard
OT  - Flood risk
OT  - Flood vulnerability
OT  - GIS
OT  - MCDM
OT  - TOPSIS
EDAT- 2022/06/18 06:00
MHDA- 2022/06/22 06:00
CRDT- 2022/06/17 11:15
PHST- 2021/11/04 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2022/05/15 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2022/06/17 11:15 [entrez]
PHST- 2022/06/18 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2022/06/22 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1007/s10661-022-10111-x [pii]
AID - 10.1007/s10661-022-10111-x [doi]
PST - epublish
SO  - Environ Monit Assess. 2022 Jun 17;194(7):509. doi: 10.1007/s10661-022-10111-x.