GIS-based seismic vulnerability mapping: a comparison of artificial neural networks hybrid models

References

• Abbasi M, Moustafa MA. 2019. Effect of damping modeling and characteristics on seismic vulnerability assessment of multi-frame bridges. J Earthquake Eng. :1–28. doi:10.1080/13632469.2019.1592791
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdullah TO, Ali SS, Al-Ansari NA, Knutsson S. 2018. Possibility of groundwater pollution in Halabja Saidsadiq hydrogeological basin, Iraq using modified DRASTIC model based on AHP and tritium isotopes. Geosciences. 8(7):236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahulu ST, Danuor SK, Asiedu DK. 2018. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of southern part of Ghana. J Seismol. 22(3):539–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Dogom D, Schuckma K, Al-Ruzouq R. 2018. Geostatistical seismic analysis and hazard assessment; United Arab Emirates. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci. XLII-3/W4: 29–36. doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-3-W4-29-2018
   Google Scholar
• Alam MS, Haque SM. 2018. Assessment of urban physical seismic vulnerability using the combination of AHP and TOPSIS models: a case study of residential neighborhoods of Mymensingh city, Bangladesh. GEP. 06(02):165–183.
   Google Scholar
• Alcántara-Ayala I. 2002. Geomorphology, natural hazards, vulnerability and prevention of natural disasters in developing countries. Geomorphology. 47(2–4):107–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aleskerov F, Say AI, Toker A, Akin HL, Altay G. 2005. A cluster-based decision support system for estimating earthquake damage and casualties. Disasters. 29(3):255–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alizadeh M, Ngah I, Hashim M, Pradhan B, Pour AB. 2018. A hybrid analytic network process and artificial neural network (ANP-ANN) model for urban earthquake vulnerability assessment. Remote Sensing. 10(6):975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andisheh K, Amiri GG, Taghizadeh M. 2010. Evaluating Seismicity Parameters of Sanandaj, Iran Based on Instrumental Earthquakes.
   Google Scholar
• Armaş I, Rădulian M. 2014. Spatial multi-criteria risk assessment of earthquakes from Bucharest, Romania, Earthquake hazard impact and urban planning. Verlag: Springer Netherlands. p. 127–149.
   Google Scholar
• Asadi Y, Samany NN, Ezimand K. 2019. Seismic vulnerability assessment of urban buildings and traffic networks using fuzzy ordered weighted average. J Mt Sci. 16(3):677–688.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asim KM, Idris A, Iqbal T, Martínez-Álvarez F. 2018. Earthquake prediction model using support vector regressor and hybrid neural networks. PloS One. 13(7):e0199004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ateş A, Mutlu AH. 2019. Earthquake hazard mapping and analysis by integrating GIS, AHP and TOPSIS for Gölyaka Region in Duzce, Turkey. BGJ Consulting. https://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456789/17079
   Google Scholar
• Badal J, Vázquez-Prada M, González Á. 2005. Preliminary quantitative assessment of earthquake casualties and damages. Nat Hazards. 34(3):353–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrena-González J, Rodrigo-Comino J, Gyasi-Agyei Y, Pulido M, Cerdá A. 2020. Applying the RUSLE and ISUM in the Tierra de Barros vineyards (Extremadura, Spain) to estimate soil mobilisation rates. Land. 9(3):93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaulac C, Rosenthal JS. 2019. Predicting university Students’ academic success and major using random forests. Res High Educ. 60(7):1048–1064.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonissone PP, Decker KS. 1986. Selecting uncertainty calculi and granularity: an experiment in trading-off precision and complexity. In: Machine intelligence and pattern recognition. North-Holland: Elsevier, vol. 4, p. 217–247.
   Google Scholar
• Briassoulis H. 2019. Combating land degradation and desertification: the land-use planning quandary. Land. 8(2):27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter GA, Grossberg S. 1987. A massively parallel architecture for a self-organizing neural pattern recognition machine. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing. 37(1):54–115.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter GA, Grossberg S, Reynolds JH. 1991. ARTMAP: supervised real-time learning and classification of nonstationary data by a self-organizing neural network. Neural Netw. 4(5):565–588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carte L, Schmook B, Radel C, Johnson R. 2019. The slow displacement of smallholder farming families: land, hunger, and labor migration in Nicaragua and Guatemala. Land. 8(6):89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavallo E, Galiani S, Noy I, Pantano J. 2013. Catastrophic natural disasters and economic growth. Rev Econ Stat. 95(5):1549–1561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerdà A, Ackermann O, Terol E, Rodrigo-Comino J. 2019. Impact of farmland abandonment on water resources and soil conservation in citrus plantations in eastern Spain. Water. 11(4):824.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerdà A, Rodrigo-Comino J. 2020. Is the hillslope position relevant for runoff and soil loss activation under high rainfall conditions in vineyards? Ecohydrol Hydrobiol. 20(1):59–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng C-H, Chang J-R, Ho T-H. 2006. Dynamic fuzzy OWA model for evaluating the risks of software development. Cybern Syst. 37(8):791–813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi W, Park J-W, Kim J. 2019. Loss assessment of building and contents damage from the potential earthquake risk in Seoul. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 19(5):985–997.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cimellaro GP, Marasco S. 2018. Introduction to dynamics of structures and earthquake engineering. In: Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Custódio CA, Filletti ÉR, França VV. 2019. Artificial neural networks for density-functional optimizations in fermionic systems. Sci Rep. 9(1):1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De'ath G, Fabricius KE. 2000. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology. 81(11):3178–3192.2.0.CO;2]
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Matteis G, Corlito V, Guadagnuolo M, Tafuro A. 2020. Seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting strategies of Italian masonry churches of the Alife-Caiazzo Diocese in Caserta. Int J Archit Heritage. 14(8):1180–1195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehghani R, Mohammadzadeh N, Salehi M, Kassiri H. 2018. Earthquake planning and crisis management with an emphasis on the facilities, utilities, and services of the health care centers of Tiran and Karvan County, Isfahan Province, Iran: a case study. J Acute Dis. 7(3):115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eldrandaly K. 2013. Developing a GIS-based MCE site selection tool in ArcGIS using COM technology. Int. Arab J. Inf. Technol. 10:276–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farahani S, Tahershamsi A, Behnam B. 2020. Earthquake and post-earthquake vulnerability assessment of urban gas pipelines network. Nat Hazards. 101(2):327–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fawcett T. 2006. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recog Lett. 27(8):861–874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautam D. 2017. Assessment of social vulnerability to natural hazards in Nepal. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 17(12):2313–2320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautam D, Adhikari R, Rupakhety R, Koirala P. 2020. An empirical method for seismic vulnerability assessment of Nepali school buildings. Bull Earthquake Eng. 18(13):5965–5982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granger E, Rubin MA, Grossberg S, Lavoie P. 2001. A what-and-where fusion neural network for recognition and tracking of multiple radar emitters. Neural Netw. 14(3):325–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith R. 2000. Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med. 45(1–2):23–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, Wang X, Zhao Y, Xin C, Xiang H. 2018. Large earthquake magnitude prediction in Taiwan based on deep learning neural network. NNW. 28(2):149–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamali AA, Kalkhajeh RG. 2020. Spatial modeling considering valley’s shape and rural satisfaction in check dams site selection and water harvesting in the watershed. Water Resour Manage. 34(10):3331–3344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jelokhani-Niaraki M. 2013. Web 2.0-based collaborative multicriteria spatial decision support system: a case study of human-computer interaction patterns.
   Google Scholar
• Jena R, Pradhan B, Beydoun G. 2020. Earthquake vulnerability assessment in Northern Sumatra province by using a multi-criteria decision-making model. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 46:101518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang Y, Yang C, Na J, Li G, Li Y, Zhong J. 2017. A brief review of neural networks based learning and control and their applications for robots. Complexity. 2017:1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn ME. 2005. The death toll from natural disasters: the role of income, geography, and institutions. Rev Econ Stat. 87(2):271–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karami M, Yariyan P. 2019. Assessment and uncertainty urban vulnerability caused by earthquake using FAHP model (Case study: Sanandaj). J Geogr Environ Hazards. 8:185–203.
   Google Scholar
• Lee S, Pradhan B. 2006. Probabilistic landslide hazards and risk mapping on Penang Island, Malaysia. J Earth Syst Sci. 115(6):661–672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindell MK, Prater CS. 2003. Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Nat Hazards Rev. 4(4):176–185.
   Google Scholar
• Loayza NV, Olaberria E, Rigolini J, Christiaensen L. 2012. Natural disasters and growth: going beyond the averages. World Dev. 40(7):1317–1336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovon H, Tarque N, Silva V, Yepes-Estrada C. 2018. Development of fragility curves for confined masonry buildings in Lima, Peru. Earthquake Spectra. 34(3):1339–1361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maselli F, Chirici G, Bottai L, Corona P, Marchetti M. 2005. Estimation of Mediterranean forest attributes by the application of k‐NN procedures to multitemporal Landsat ETM + images. Int J Remote Sens. 26(17):3781–3796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meena SR, Mishra BK, Tavakkoli Piralilou S. 2019. A hybrid spatial multi-criteria evaluation method for mapping landslide susceptible areas in Kullu Valley, Himalayas. Geosciences. 9(4):156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller J, Franklin J. 2002. Modeling the distribution of four vegetation alliances using generalized linear models and classification trees with spatial dependence. Ecol Modell. 157(2–3):227–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohebbi Tafreshi G, Nakhaei M, Lak R. 2020. A GIS-based comparative study of hybrid fuzzy-gene expression programming and hybrid fuzzy-artificial neural network for land subsidence susceptibility modeling. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 34(7):1059–1087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortajez S, Jamshidinezhad A. 2019. An artificial neural network model to diagnosis of type II. Diabetes J Res Med Dent Sci. 7:66–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazmfar H, Saredeh A, Eshgi A, Feizizadeh B. 2019. Vulnerability evaluation of urban buildings to various earthquake intensities: a case study of the municipal zone 9 of Tehran. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 25(1–2):455–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman JP, Maier HR, Riddell GA, Zecchin AC, Daniell JE, Schaefer AM, van Delden H, Khazai B, O'Flaherty MJ, Newland CP. 2017. Review of literature on decision support systems for natural hazard risk reduction: current status and future research directions. Environmental Modelling & Software. 96:378–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyimbili PH, Erden T. 2018. Spatial decision support systems (SDSS) and software applications for earthquake disaster management with special reference to Turkey. Nat Hazards. 90(3):1485–1507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pittore M, Haas M, Megalooikonomou KG. 2018. Risk-oriented, bottom-up modeling of building portfolios with faceted taxonomies. Front Built Environ. 4:41.
   Google Scholar
• Plaza F, Salas R, Nicolis O. 2019. Assessing seismic hazard in chile using deep neural networks, natural hazards-risk, exposure, response, and resilience. IntechOpen.
   Google Scholar
• Preciado A, Ramirez-Gaytan A, Santos JC, Rodriguez O. 2020. Seismic vulnerability assessment and reduction at a territorial scale on masonry and adobe housing by rapid vulnerability indicators: the case of Tlajomulco, Mexico. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 44:101425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaie F, Panahi M. 2015. GIS modeling of seismic vulnerability of residential fabrics considering geotechnical, structural, social and physical distance indicators in Tehran using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 15(3):461–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riyanto W, Irawan D, Joko Wahyu Adi T, Iranata D, Rizki Amalia A. 2020. Earthquake vulnerability assessment of high-rise buildings in Surabaya using RViSITS android application. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 739:012040.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrigo‐Comino J, Ponsoda‐Carreres M, Salesa D, Terol E, Gyasi‐Agyei Y, Cerdà A. 2020. Soil erosion processes in subtropical plantations (Diospyros kaki) managed under flood irrigation in Eastern Spain. Singapore J Trop Geogr. 41(1):120–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty T. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making. Kobe, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Shahabi H, Hashim M. 2015. Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based statistical models and Remote sensing data in tropical environment. Sci Rep. 5(1):9899.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. 1967. Statistical methods. Ames, Iowa. Iowa State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Uyan M. 2014. MSW landfill site selection by combining AHP with GIS for Konya. Environ Earth Sci. 71(4):1629–1639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentini A, Visini F, Pace B. 2017. Integrating faults and past earthquakes into a probabilistic seismic hazard model for peninsular Italy. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Wan J, Su Y, Zan H, Zhao Y, Zhang L, Zhang S, Dong X, Deng W. 2020. Land functions, rural space governance, and farmers ‘environmental perceptions’: a case study from the Huanjiang Karst Mountain Area, China. Land. 9(5):134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Li W. 2017. A GIS-based comparative evaluation of analytical hierarchy process and frequency ratio models for landslide susceptibility mapping. Phys Geogr. 38(4):318–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis I, Fitton J. 2016. A review of multivariate social vulnerability methodologies: a case study of the River Parrett catchment, UK. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 16(6):1387–1399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yager RR. 1988. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybern. 18(1):183–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang D, Yang A, Qiu H, Zhou Y, Herrero H, Fu C-S, Yu Q, Tang J. 2019. A citizen-contributed GIS approach for evaluating the impacts of land use on hurricane-Harvey-induced flooding in Houston area. Land. 8(2):25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yariyan P, Avand M, Soltani F, Ghorbanzadeh O, Blaschke T. 2020a. Earthquake vulnerability mapping using different hybrid models. Symmetry. 12(3):405.
   Google Scholar
• Yariyan P, Janizadeh S, Van Phong T, Nguyen HD, Costache R, Van Le H, Pham BT, Pradhan B, Tiefenbacher JP. 2020b. Improvement of best first decision trees using bagging and dagging ensembles for flood probability mapping. Water Resour Manage. 34(9):3037–3053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yariyan P, Zabihi H, Wolf ID, Karami M, Amiriyan S. 2020c. Earthquake risk assessment using an integrated Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process with Artificial Neural Networks based on GIS: a case study of Sanandaj in Iran. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 50:101705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yesilnacar EK. 2005. The application of computational intelligence to landslide susceptibility mapping in Turkey. Parkville, Victoria: University of Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Yi Y, Zhang Z, Zhang W, Xu Q, Deng C, Li Q. 2019. GIS-based earthquake-triggered-landslide susceptibility mapping with an integrated weighted index model in Jiuzhaigou region of Sichuan Province, China. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 19(9):1973–1988.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zambon M, Lawrence R, Bunn A, Powell S. 2006. Effect of alternative splitting rules on image processing using classification tree analysis. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens. 72(1):25–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhuang J, Peng J, Zhu X, Huang W. 2019. Scenario-based risk assessment of earthquake disaster using slope displacement, PGA, and population density in the Guyuan Region, China. IJGI. 8(2):85.
   Google Scholar