GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for flood prone areas mapping in the trans-boundary Shatt Al-Arab basin, Iraq-Iran

Figures & data

Table 1. Literature review of the parameters used to depict flood hazard zones (FHZ).

Literature	Rf	DR	DEM	Sl	LULC	DD	So	Lt
Stefanidis and Stathis (2013)				x	x	x
Ouma and Tateishi (2014)	x		x	x	x	x	x
Dahri and Abida (2017)	x		x	x	x	x		x
Ghosh and Kar (2018)	x	x	x	x
Ogato et al. (2020)	x		x	x	x	x	x
Gashaw and Legesse (2011)	x		x	x	x	x	x
Elkhrachy (2015)	x	x		x	x	x	x
Dash and Sar (2020)	x		x	x	x	x		x
Ullah and Zhang (2020)	x		x	x	x	x
Seejata et al. (2018)	x		x	x	x	x	x
Kazakis et al. (2015)	x		x	x	x	x		x
Chakraborty and Mukhopadhyay (2019)	x	x	x	x		x
Subbarayan and Sivaranjani (2020)	x		x	x	x	x		x
Hoque et al. (2019)	x	x	x	x	x
Gambini and Laymito (2019)	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Rahman et al. (2019)	x		x	x	x		x	x
Hajibigloo et al. (2017)	x	x		x				x
Xiao et al. (2017)		x	x	x		x
Kabenge et al. (2017)	x	x		x	x	x		x
Kourgialas and Karatzas (2011)	x		x	x	x	x		x
Fernández and Lutz (2010)		x	x	x	x
Rahmati, Zeinivand, et al. (2016)		x	x	x	x
Wipulanusat et al. (2009)	x	x		x	x	x	x
Tanavud et al. (2004)	x		x	x	x	x
Tehrany et al. (2017)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Tehrany et al. (2013)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Cabrera and Lee (2019)	x	x	x	x		x	x
Rincón et al. (2018)	x	x	x	x
Lee et al. (2017)		x	x	x	x		x	x

Note: Rf = Rainfall; DR = Distance to the River; DEM = Digital Elevation Model; Sl = Slope; LULC = Land Use Land Cover; DD = Drainage Density; So = Soil; Lt = Lithology.

Figure 1. Study site.

Figure 2. Flowchart for the identification of flood hazard zones (FHZs).

Table 2. The 1–9 scale of factors importance (Saaty 1980a).

Strength of importance	Explanation
1	Equal significance
3	Medium significance
5	Strong
7	Very strong significance
9	Maximum significance
2, 4, 6, and 8	Intermediate between two adjacent values

Table 3. A (8 x× 8) pairwise comparison matrix for the AHP-based flood hazard mapping.

	Rf	DR	DEM	Sl	LULC	DD	So	Lt	Normalized principal Eigenvector
Rf	1	1 1/2	1 1/7	2	2 1/4	1 1/2	1 7/9	2 2/3	19.57%
DR	2/3	1	1 1/2	1 1/7	2	1 1/4	1 2/3	2 1/2	16.06%
DEM	7/8	2/3	1	1	1 1/2	1 1/6	1 5/9	3	14.20%
Sl	1/2	7/8	1	1	1 1/2	1 3/4	1 4/9	2 1/2	13.99%
LULC	4/9	1/2	2/3	2/3	1	1 3/4	1 4/9	2 1/6	11.07%
DD	2/3	4/5	6/7	4/7	4/7	1	1 1/3	2	10.57%
So	4/7	3/5	2/3	2/3	2/3	3/4	1	1 1/2	8.89%
Lt	3/8	2/5	1/3	2/5	1/2	1/2	2/3	1	5.65%
Sum	5	6 1/3	7 1/7	7 1/2	10	9 2/3	10 8/9	17 1/3	100.00%

Note: Rf = Rainfall; DR = Distance to the River; DEM = Digital Elevation Model; Sl = Slope; LULC = Land Use Land Cover; DD = Drainage Density; So = Soil; Lt = Lithology.

Table 4. Calculation of the principal Eigenvalue (λ_max) to rank parameter influence.

	Column sums row 10 of table 4 (1)	Eigenvectors column 11 of table 4 (2)	Parameter rank (1)*(2)
Rf	5	0.196	0.98
DR	6 1/3	0.161	1.02
DEM	7 1/7	0.142	1.01
Sl	7 1/2	0.140	1.05
LULC	10	0.111	1.11
DD	9 2/3	0.106	1.02
So	10 8/9	0.089	0.97
Lt	17 1/3	0.057	0.98
Sum (λmax)			8.14

Note: Rf = Rainfall; DR = Distance to River; DEM = Digital Elevation Model; Sl = Slope; LULC = Land Use Land Cover; DD = Drainage Density; So = Soil; Lt = Lithology.

Table 5. Saaty's ratio index for different n values (Saaty 1980a).

N	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
RI	0.58	0.89	1.12	1.24	1.32	1.41	1.45	1.49

Table 6. Assigned weight and rank scores for the layer/class of the Shatt Al-Arab basin.

Parameter (Unit)	Class	Flood hazard	Parameter weight (%)	Class rank
Rainfall (mm/yr)	< 100–200	Very low	19.57%	1
	200–300	Low		2
	300–400	Moderate		3
	400–500	High		4
Distance to the river (km)	0–35	Very high	16.06%	5
	35–70	High		4
	70–105	Moderate		3
	105–140	Low		2
	> 140	Very low		1
DEM (m)	0–50	Very high	14.20%	5
	50–500	High		4
	500–1500	Moderate		3
	1500–2500	Low		2
	2500–4400	Very low		1
Slop (degree)	< 10	Very high	13.99%	5
	10–20	High		4
	20–30	Moderate		3
	30–40	Low		2
	> 40	Very low		1
Land use/land cover	Shrub land (36%)	Very low	11.07%	1
	Cropland (12%)	Low		2
	Bare land (∼50%)	Moderate		3
	Urban	High		4
	Water	Very high		5
Drainage density (km/km^2)	< 0.75	Very low	10.57%	1
	0.75–1.5	Low		2
	1.5–2.25	Moderate		3
	2.25–3	High		4
	> 3	Very high		5
Soil	Clay	Extremely high	8.89%	5
	Silty clay	Very High		4.5
	Sandy clay	High		4
	Clay loam	Moderate		3
	Loam	Low		2
	Loamy sand	Very low		1.5
	Sand	Extremely low		1
Lithology	Evaporites	Extremely high	5.65%	5
	Metamorphic	Very High		4
	Plutonic Igneous	High		4
	Volcanic Igneous	High		3
	Siliciclastic Sedimentary	Medium		3
	Mixed sedimentary	Low		2
	Carbonate Sedimentary	Very low		2
	Unconsolidated Sediments	Extremely low		1

Figure 3. The study area’s (a) annual rainfall, (b) distance to rivers, (c) Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and (d) Slope.

Figure 4. The study area’s (a) LULC, (b) drainage density, (c) soils (dominant grain sizes), and (d) Lithology.

Figure 5. Flood hazard map of the Shatt Al-Arab basin.

Figure 6. Flood hazard zones validation against the 21 March 2019 flood event.

Table 7. Flood hazard zones distribution for each land use category.

Land use/land cover	Risk degree (%)
	Very low	Low	Intermediate	High
Urban	–	5.7	59.6	34.7
Cropland	0.1	11.5	59.7	28.7
Shrub land	1.5	41.9	37.7	18.9
Bare land	2.1	44.6	36.4	16.9

Stefanidis S, Stathis D. 2013. Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Nat Hazards. 68(2):569–585.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dahri N, Abida H. 2017. Monte Carlo simulation-aided analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for flood susceptibility mapping in Gabes Basin (southeastern Tunisia). Environ Earth Sci. 76(7):302.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghosh A, Kar S. 2018. Application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for flood risk assessment: a case study in Malda district of West Bengal. Nat Hazards. 94(1):349–368.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ogato G, Bantider A, Abebe K, Geneletti D. 2020. Geographic information system (GIS)-Based multicriteria analysis of flooding hazard and risk in Ambo Town and its watershed, West shoa zone, oromia regional State Ethiopia. J Hydrol Regional Studies. 27 (2020):100659.

 Google Scholar

Gashaw W, Legesse D. 2011. Flood hazard and risk assessment using GIS and Remote Sensing in Fogera Woreda, Northwest Ethiopia. Nile River Basin. Springer, p. 179–206.

 Google Scholar

Dash P, Sar J. 2020. Identification and validation of potential flood hazard area using GIS-based multi-criteria analysis and satellite data-derived water index. J Flood Risk Management. 13(3):e12620.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ullah K, Zhang J. 2020. GIS-based flood hazard mapping using relative frequency ratio method: a case study of Panjkora River Basin, eastern Hindu Kush, Pakistan. PLoS One. 15(3):e0229153.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seejata K, Yodying A, Wongthadam T, Mahavik N, Tantanee S. 2018. Assessment of flood hazard areas using Analytical Hierarchy Process over the Lower Yom Basin, Sukhothai Province. Procedia Eng. 212:340–347.

 Google Scholar

Kazakis N, Kougias I, Patsialis T. 2015. Assessment of flood hazard areas at a regional scale using an index-based approach and analytical hierarchy process: application in Rhodope-Evros region, Greece. Sci Total Environ. 538:555–563.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chakraborty S, Mukhopadhyay S. 2019. Assessing flood risk using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and geographical information system (GIS): application in Coochbehar district of West Bengal. Nat Hazards. 99(1):247–274.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Subbarayan S, Sivaranjani S. 2020. Modelling of flood susceptibility based on gis and analytical hierarchy process—a case study of Adayar River Basin, Tamilnadu, India. In: Pal I, von Meding J, Shrestha S, Ahmed I, Gajendran T, editors. An interdisciplinary approach for disaster resilience and sustainability. MRDRRE 2017. Disaster Risk Reduction (Methods, Approaches and Practices). Singapore: Springer.

 Google Scholar

Hoque M, Tasfia S, Ahmed N, Pradhan B. 2019. Assessing spatial flood vulnerability at Kalapara Upazila in Bangladesh using an analytic hierarchy process. Sensors. 19(6):1302.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gambini JM, Laymito JA. 2019. Multiparametric ahp-based flood hazard zonation approach in northwestern Peru at basin scale. E-Proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress, September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama.

 Google Scholar

Rahman M, Ningsheng C, Islam M, Dewan A, Iqbal J, Washakh R, Shufeng T. 2019. Flood susceptibility assessment in Bangladesh using machine learning and multi criteria decision analysis. Earth Syst Environ. 3(3):585–601.

 Google Scholar

Hajibigloo M, Ghezelsofloo AA, Memarian H, Sheikh VB. 2017. Mapping the flood-prone areas for developing a flood risk management system in the Northeast of Iran. Water Harvest Res. 2(2):1–12. www.jwhr.birjand.ac.ir.

 Google Scholar

Xiao Y, Yi S, Tang Z. 2017. Integrated flood hazard assessment based on spatial ordered weighted averaging method considering spatial heterogeneity of risk preference. Sci Total Environ. 599-600 (2017):1034–1046.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Kabenge M, Elaru J, Wang H, Li F. 2017. Characterizing flood hazard risk in data-scarce areas, using a remote sensing and GIS-based flood hazard index. Nat Hazards. 89(3):1369–1387.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rahmati O, Zeinivand H, Besharat M. 2016. Flood hazard zoning in Yasooj region, Iran, using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 7(3):1000–1017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wipulanusat W, Nakrod S, Prabnarong P. 2009. Multi-hazard risk assessment using GIS and RS applications: a case study of Pak Phanang Basin. Walailak J Sci & Tech. 6(1):109–125.

 Google Scholar

Tanavud C, Yongchalermchai C, Bennui A, Densreeserekul O. 2004. Assessment of flood risk in Hat Yai Municipality, Southern Thailand, using GIS. J Nat Disaster Sci. 26(1):1–14.

 Google Scholar

Tehrany MS, Shabani F, Jebur MN, Hongh H, Chen W, Xie X. 2017. GIS-based spatial prediction of flood prone areas using standalone frequency ratio, logistic regression, weight of evidence and their ensemble techniques. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 8(2):1538–1561.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cabrera JS, Lee HS. 2019. Flood-prone area assessment using GIS-based multi-criteria analysis: a case study in Davao Oriental, Philippines. Water. 11:2203.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rincón D, Khan U, Armenakis C. 2018. Flood risk mapping using GIS and multi-criteria analysis: a greater Toronto area case study. Geosciences. 8(8):275.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee S, Kim J, Jung H, Lee M, Lee S. 2017. Spatial prediction of flood susceptibility using random- and boosted-tree models in Seoul metropolitan city, Korea. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 8(2):1185–1203.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saaty T. 1980a. Group decision making and the AHP. In: Golden BL, Wasil EA, Harker PT, editors. The analytic hierarchy process. Berlin, Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.