Advertisement

Multi-hazard assessment modeling via multi-criteria analysis and GIS: a case study

  • Hariklia D. Skilodimou
  • George D. BathrellosEmail author
  • Konstantinos Chousianitis
  • Ahmed M. Youssef
  • Biswajeet Pradhan
Original Article

Abstract

Multi-hazard assessment modeling comprises an essential tool in any plan that aims to mitigate the impact of future natural disasters. For a particular area they can be generated by combining assessment maps for different types of natural hazards. In the present study, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) supported by a Geographical Information System (GIS) was utilized to initially produce assessment maps on hazards from landslides, floods and earthquakes and subsequently to combine them into a single multi-hazard map. Evaluation of the reliability of the proposed model predictions was performed through uncertainty analysis of the variables that we used for producing the final model. The drainage basin of Peneus (Pinios) River (Western Peloponnesus, Greece), an area that is prone to landslides, floods and seismic events, was selected for the implementation of the aforementioned approach. Our findings revealed that the high hazard zones are mainly distributed in the western and north-eastern part of the region under investigation. The calculated multi-hazard map, which corresponds to the potential urban development suitability map of the study area, was classified into five classes, namely of very low, low, moderate, high and very high suitability. The most suitable areas for urban development are distributed mostly in the eastern part, in agreement with the low and very low hazard level for the three considered natural hazards. In addition, by performing uncertainty analysis we showed that the spatial distribution of the suitability zones does not change significantly. Ultimately, the final map was verified using the actual inventory of landslides and floods that affected the study area. In this context, we showed that 80% of the landslide occurrences and all the recorded flood events fall within the boundaries of the moderate, low and very low suitability zones. Consequently, the predictive capacity of the applied method is quite good. Finally, the spatial distribution of the urban areas and the road network were compared with the derived suitability map and the results revealed that approximately 50% of both of them are located within areas susceptible to natural hazards. The proposed approach can be useful for engineers, planners and local authorities in spatial planning and natural hazard management.

Keywords

Analytical hierarchy process Natural hazard assessment maps Suitability map for urban development Peneus River, Western Peloponnesus, Greece 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The constructive and thorough reviews of two anonymous reviewers are warmly acknowledged.

References

  1. Abdulwahid WM, Pradhan B (2016) Landslide vulnerability and risk assessment for multi-hazard scenarios using airborne laser scanning data (LiDAR). Landslides 14(3):1057–1076Google Scholar
  2. Agricultural University of Athens (A.U.A.) (2007) Study on the rehabilitation and development of the agricultural sector—forestry & environmental protection in fire affected areas Elis prefecture. AUA, for the Ministry of Rural Development and Food, Athens, 320Google Scholar
  3. Althuwaynee OF, Pradhan B (2016) Semi quantitative landslide risk assessment at Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan City using GIS and exposure based analysis. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 8(2):706–732Google Scholar
  4. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 438–483Google Scholar
  5. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology 65:15–31Google Scholar
  6. Baja S, Chapman DM, Dragovich D (2007) Spatial based compromise programming for multiple criteria decision making in land use planning. Environ Model Assess 12(3):171–184Google Scholar
  7. Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Kelepertsis A, Alexakis D, Chrisanthaki I, Archonti D (2008) Environmental research of groundwater in the urban and suburban areas of Attica region, Greece. Environ Geol 56(1):11–18Google Scholar
  8. Bathrellos GD, Kalivas DP, Skilodimou HD (2009) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping models applied to natural and urban planning in Trikala, Central Greece. Estud Geol-Madrid 65(1):49–65Google Scholar
  9. Bathrellos GD, Gaki-Papanastassiou K, Skilodimou HD, Papanastassiou D, Chousianitis KG (2012) Potential suitability for urban planning and industry development by using natural hazard maps and geological—geomorphological parameters. Environ Earth Sci 66(2):537–548Google Scholar
  10. Bathrellos GD, Gaki-Papanastassiou K, Skilodimou HD, Skianis GA, Chousianitis KG (2013) Assessment of rural community and agricultural development using geomorphological–geological factors and GIS in the Trikala prefecture (Central Greece). Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27(2):573–588Google Scholar
  11. Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Maroukian H (2014) The spatial distribution of Middle and Late Pleistocene cirques in Greece. Geogr Ann A 96(3):323–338Google Scholar
  12. Bathrellos GD, Karymbalis E, Skilodimou HD, Gaki-Papanastassiou K, Baltas EA (2016) Urban flood hazard assessment in the basin of Athens Metropolitan city, Greece. Environ Earth Sci 75(4):319Google Scholar
  13. Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Chousianitis K, Youssef AM, Pradhan B (2017a) Suitability estimation for urban development using multi-hazard assessment map. Sci Total Environ 575:119–134Google Scholar
  14. Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Maroukian H (2017b) The significance of tectonism in the glaciations of Greece. In: Hughes PD, Woodward JC (eds) Quaternary glaciation in the Mediterranean mountains. Geological Society Special Publication, London, Vol. 433, pp 237–250Google Scholar
  15. Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Maroukian H, Gaki-Papanastassiou K, Kouli K, Tsourou T, Tsaparas N (2017c) Pleistocene glacial and lacustrine activity in the southern part of Mount Olympus (central Greece). Area 49(2):137–147Google Scholar
  16. Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Soukis K, Koskeridou E (2018) Temporal and spatial analysis of flood occurrences in drainage basin of Pinios River (Thessaly, central Greece). Land 7(3):106.  https://doi.org/10.3390/land7030106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bender S (1991) Primer on natural hazard management in integrated regional development planning. Department of Regional Development and Environment, Executive Secretariat for Economic and Social Affairs, Organization of American States, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Burton PW, Xua Y, Tselentis GA, Sokos E, Aspinall W (2003) Strong ground acceleration seismic hazard in Greece and neighboring regions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:159–181Google Scholar
  19. Chalkias C, Polykretis C, Ferentinou M, Karymbalis E (2016) Integrating expert knowledge with statistical analysis for landslide susceptibility assessment at regional scale. Geosciences 6(1):14Google Scholar
  20. Chen Y, Yu J, Khan S (2010) Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environ Modell Softw 25:1582–1591Google Scholar
  21. Chousianitis K, Del Gaudio V, Kalogeras I, Ganas A (2014) Predictive model of Arias intensity and Newmark displacement for regional scale evaluation of earthquake-induced landslide hazard in Greece. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:11–29Google Scholar
  22. Chousianitis K, Del Gaudio V, Sabatakakis N, Kavoura K, Drakatos G, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD (2016) Assessment of earthquake-induced landslide hazard in Greece: from Arias intensity to spatial distribution of slope resistance demand. B Seismol Soc Am 106(1):174–188Google Scholar
  23. Copernicus (2016) Copernicus land monitoring service. Available at http://land.copernicus.eu. Accessed 06 July 2016
  24. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. B Seismol Soc Am 58:1583–1606Google Scholar
  25. Das HO, Sonmez C, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA (2013) Influence of seismic acceleration on landslide susceptibility maps: a case study from NE Turkey (the Kelkit Valley). Landslides 10(4):433–454Google Scholar
  26. De Moel H, van Alphen J, Aerts JCJH (2009) Flood maps in Europe-methods, availability and use. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(2):289–301Google Scholar
  27. Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization (EPPO) (2003) New national seismic hazard map. National Gazette, 1154, vol BGoogle Scholar
  28. ECI (2004) Expert Choice Inc. http://www.expertchoice.com. Accessed 08 Sept 2016
  29. El Morjani Z, Ebner S, Boos J, Abdel Ghaffar E, Musani A (2007) Modelling the spatial distribution of five natural hazards in the context of the WHO/EMRO Atlas of disaster risk as a step towards the reduction of the health impact related to disasters. Int J Health Geogr 6:1–28Google Scholar
  30. Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) (2004) Using HAZUS-MH for risk assessment. HAZU-MH risk assessment and user group series. FEMA 433Google Scholar
  31. Fernández DS, Lutz MA (2010) Urban flood hazard zoning in Tucumán Province, Argentina, using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Eng Geol 111(1–4):90–98Google Scholar
  32. Goldsworthy M, Jackson J (2001) Migration of activity within normal fault systems: examples from the Quaternary of mainland Greece. J Struct Geol 23(2):489–506Google Scholar
  33. Goldsworthy M, Jackson J, Haines AJ (2002) The continuity of active fault systems in Greece. Geophys J Int 148:596–618Google Scholar
  34. Hellenic Army Geographical Service (H.A.G.S) (1989) Topographic maps (scale 1:50,000), AthensGoogle Scholar
  35. Hopkins LD (1977) Methods for generating land suitability maps: a comparative evaluation. J Am Inst Planners 43(4):386–400Google Scholar
  36. Iervolino I (2013) Probabilities and fallacies: why hazard maps cannot be validated by individual earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 29(3):1125–1136Google Scholar
  37. Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E) (1983) Geological map of Greece (Scale 1:50,000), AthensGoogle Scholar
  38. Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.) (1993) Engineering Geological map of Greece (Scale 1:500,000), AthensGoogle Scholar
  39. IUGSWGL (International Union of Geological Sciences Working Group on Landslides) (1995) A suggested method for describing the rate of movement of a landslide. Bull IAEG 52:75–78Google Scholar
  40. Jebur MN, Pradhan B, Shafri HZM, Yusof Z, Tehrany MS (2015) An integrated user-friendly ArcMAP tool for bivariate statistical modeling in geoscience applications. Geosci Model Dev 8:881–891Google Scholar
  41. Kamberis E, Bathrellos GD, Kokinou E, Skilodimou HD (2012) Correlation between the structural pattern and the development of the hydrographic network in a portion of Western Thessaly basin (Greece). Cent Eur J Geosci 4(3):416–424Google Scholar
  42. Kappes M, Papathoma-Kohle M, Keiler M (2011) Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology. Appl Geogr 32:577–590Google Scholar
  43. Kappes MS, Keiler M, von Elverfeldt K, Glade T (2012) Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review. Nat Hazards 64(2):1925–1958Google Scholar
  44. Karaman H, Erden T (2014) Net earthquake hazard and elements at risk (NEaR) map creation for city of Istanbul via spatial multi-criteria decision analysis. Nat Hazards 73(2):685–709Google Scholar
  45. Karymbalis E, Chalkias C, Ferentinou M, Maistrali A (2011) Flood hazard evaluation in small catchments based on quantitative geomorphology and GIS modeling: the case of Diakoniaris torrent (W. Peloponnese, Greece). In: Lamprakis N, Stournaras G, Katsanou K (eds) Advances in the research of aquatic environment. Springer, Berlin, pp 137–145Google Scholar
  46. Keefer DK, Wilson RC (1989) Predicting earthquake induced landslides with emphasis on arid or semi-arid environments. In: Sadler PM, Morton DM (eds) Landslides in a semi-arid environment, inland geological society, vol 2. Inland Geological Society, Riverside, pp 118–149Google Scholar
  47. Kokinou E, Skilodimou HD, Bathrellos GD, Antonarakou A, Kamberis E (2015) Morphotectonic analysis, structural evolution/pattern of a contractional ridge: Giouchtas Mt., Central Crete, Greece. J Earth Syst Sci 124(3):587–602Google Scholar
  48. Koukis G, Rozos D (1990) Geotechnical properties of the Neogene sediments in the NW Peloponnesus, Greece. In: Proceedings of the 6th international congress of IAEG. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 405–412Google Scholar
  49. Koukouvelas IK, Doutsos T (1997) The effects of active faults on the generation of landslides in NW Peloponnese, Greece. In: Marinos PG, Koukis GC, Tsiambaos GC, Stournaras GC (Eds) Engineering geology and the environment, vol. 1, Balkema, Amsterdam, pp 799–804Google Scholar
  50. Koukouvelas I, Mpresiakas A, Sokos E, Doutsos T (1996) The tectonic setting and earthquake ground hazards of the 1993 Pyrgos earthquake, Peloponnese, Greece. J Geol Soc London 153:39–49Google Scholar
  51. Makropoulos KC, Burton PW (1985a) Seismic hazard in Greece. I: magnitude recurrence. Tectonophysics 117:205–257Google Scholar
  52. Makropoulos KC, Burton PW (1985b) Seismic Hazard in Greece II: ground Acceleration. Tectonophysics 117:259–294Google Scholar
  53. Makropoulos KC, Burton PW (1986) “HAZAN”: A Fortan program to evaluate seismic-hazard parameters using Gumbel’s theory of extreme value statistics. Comput Geosci 12(1):29–46Google Scholar
  54. Marzocchi W, Jordan TH (2014) Testing for ontological errors in probabilistic forecasting models of natural systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(33):11973–11978Google Scholar
  55. Mavroulis S, Fountoulis I, Lekkas E (2010) Environmental effects caused by the Andravida (08-06-2008, ML = 6.5, NW Peloponnese, Greece) earthquake. In: Williams A, Pinches G, Chin C, McMorran T, Massey C (eds) Geologically active: 11th IAEG Congress. Taylor & Francis Group, Auckland, pp 451–459Google Scholar
  56. Merwade V, Cook A, Coonrod J (2008) GIS techniques for creating river terrain models for hydrodynamic modeling and flood inundation mapping. Environ Modell Softw 23:1300–1311Google Scholar
  57. Migiros G (2010) Reconstruction of Land Improvement Organisms, Prefecture of Eleia (Peneus—Alfios), Region of Western Greece. Technical Report on Water Resources Management, 129 ppGoogle Scholar
  58. Migiros G, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Karamousalis T (2011) Pinios (Peneus) River (Central Greece): hydrological–geomorphological elements and changes during the Quaternary. Cent Eur J Geosci 3(2):215–228Google Scholar
  59. Ministry of Environment and Energy (2017) Floods, historic floods. http://www.ypeka.gr/Default.aspx?tabid=252&language=el-GR. Accessed 05 Dec 2017
  60. Mucciarelli M, Albarello D, D’Amico V (2008) Comparison of probabilistic seismic hazard estimates in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2652–2664Google Scholar
  61. Nefeslioglu HA, Sezer EA, Gokceoglu C, Ayas Z (2013) A modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) approach for decision support systems in natural hazard assessments. Comput Geosci 59:1–8Google Scholar
  62. Ordaz M, Aguilar A, Arboleda J (2007) CRISIS2007: Program for computing seismic hazard, v. 5.1. Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  63. Panagopoulos G, Bathrellos G, Skilodimou H, Martsouka F (2012) Mapping Urban Water Demands Using Multi-Criteria Analysis and GIS. Water Resour Manag 26:1347–1363Google Scholar
  64. Papadopoulou-Vrynioti K, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Kaviris G, Makropoulos K (2013a) Karst collapse susceptibility mapping considering peak ground acceleration in a rapidly growing urban area. Eng Geol 158:77–88Google Scholar
  65. Papadopoulou-Vrynioti K, Alexakis D, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Vryniotis D, Vasiliades E, Gamvroula D (2013b) Distribution of trace elements in stream sediments of Arta plain (western Hellas): The influence of geomorphological parameters. J Geochem Explor 134:17–26Google Scholar
  66. Papadopoulou-Vrynioti K, Alexakis D, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Vryniotis D, Vassiliades E (2014) Environmental research and evaluation of agricultural soil of the Arta plain, western Hellas. J Geochem Explor 136:84–92Google Scholar
  67. Papaioannou CA, Papazachos BC (2000) Time-independent and time-dependent seismic hazard in Greece based on seismogenic sources. B Seismol Soc Am 90:22–33Google Scholar
  68. Pavlou K, Kaviris G, Chousianitis K, Drakatos G, Kouskouna V, Makropoulos K (2013) Seismic hazard assessment in Polyphyto Dam area (NW Greece) and its relation with the “unexpected” earthquake of 13 May 1995 (Ms = 6.5, NW Greece). Nat Hazard Earth Sys 13:141–149Google Scholar
  69. Peng SH, Shieh MJ, Fan SY (2012) Potential Hazard Map for Disaster Prevention Using GIS-Based Linear Combination Approach and Analytic Hierarchy Method. J Geogr Inf Syst 4:403–411Google Scholar
  70. Pham BT, Pradhan B, Bui DT, Prakash I, Dholakia MB (2016) A comparative study of different machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility assessment: A case study of Uttarakhand area (India). Environ Modell Softw 84:240–250Google Scholar
  71. Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C (2012) Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Nat Hazards 63(2):965–996Google Scholar
  72. Rahmati O, Zeinivand H, Besharat M (2016) Flood hazard zoning in Yasooj region, Iran, using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 7(3):1000–1017Google Scholar
  73. Rozos D, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD (2011) Comparison of the implementation of Rock Engineering System (RES) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methods, based on landslide susceptibility maps, compiled in GIS environment. A case study from the Eastern Achaia County of Peloponnesus, Greece. Environ Earth Sci 63(1):49–63Google Scholar
  74. Rozos D, Skilodimou HD, Loupasakis C, Bathrellos GD (2013) Application of the revised universal soil loss equation model on landslide prevention. An example from N. Euboea (Evia) Island, Greece. Environ Earth Sci 70(7):3255–3266Google Scholar
  75. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281Google Scholar
  76. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26Google Scholar
  77. Saaty TL (2004) Decision making – The Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP). J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13(1):1–35Google Scholar
  78. Saaty TL (2006) Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/ network processes. Eur J Oper Res 168:557–570Google Scholar
  79. Schmidt J, Matcham I, Reese S, King A, Bell R, Henderson R, Smart G, Cousins J, Smith W, Heron D (2011) Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for multi-risk modelling. Nat Hazards 58(3):1169–1192Google Scholar
  80. Setianto A, Triandini T (2013) Comparison of kriging and inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation methods in lineament extraction and analysis. J SE Asian Appl Geol 5(1):21–29Google Scholar
  81. Skilodimou H, Livaditis G, Bathrellos G, Verikiou–Papaspiridakou E (2003) Investigating the flooding events of the urban regions of Glyfada and Voula, Attica, Greece: a contribution to Urban Geomorphology. Geogr Ann A 85(2):197–204Google Scholar
  82. Skilodimou HD, Bathrellos GD, Maroukian H, Gaki-Papanastassiou K (2014) Late Quaternary evolution of the lower reaches of Ziliana stream in south Mt. Olympus (Greece). Geogr Fis Din Quat 37(1):43–50Google Scholar
  83. Skilodimou HD, Bathrellos GD, Koskeridou E, Soukis K, Rozos D (2018) Physical and anthropogenic factors related to landslide activity in the Northern Peloponnese, Greece. Land 7(3):85.  https://doi.org/10.3390/land7030085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Slaymaker O (1997) Geomorphic hazards. Wiley, Hoboken, 204 pGoogle Scholar
  85. Standard Deviation Classification (2017) GIS dictionary. http://support.esri.com/en/knowledgebase/GISDictionary/term/standard%20deviation%20classification. Accessed 05 Oct 2017
  86. Stefanidis S, Stathis D (2013) Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Nat Hazards 68:569–585Google Scholar
  87. Stirling MW, Petersen M (2006) Comparison of the historical record of earthquake hazard with seismic-hazard models for New Zealand and the continental United States. B Seismol Soc Am 96(6):1978–1994Google Scholar
  88. Strahler A (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed Geomorphology. Eos Trans AGU 38(6):913–920Google Scholar
  89. Svoray T, Bar (Kutiel) P, Bannet T (2005) Urban land-use allocation in a Mediterranean ecotone: habitat Heterogeneity Model incorporated in a GIS using a multi-criteria mechanism. Landsc Urban Plan 72:337–351Google Scholar
  90. Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Mansor S, Ahmad N (2015) Flood susceptibility mapping using GIS-based support vector machine model with different kernel types. Catena 125:91–101Google Scholar
  91. Thapa RB, Murayama Y (2008) Land evaluation for peri-urban agriculture using analytical hierarchical process and geographic information system techniques: a case study of Hanoi. Land Use Policy 25(2):225–239Google Scholar
  92. Tselentis GA, Danciu L (2010) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Greece—Part I: engineering ground motion parameters. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 10:25–39Google Scholar
  93. Tsolaki-Fiaka S, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD (2018) Multi-criteria decision analysis for an abandoned quarry in the Evros Region (NE Greece). Land 7(2):43Google Scholar
  94. Woodward J (2009) The physical geography of the Mediterranean, vol. 8. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  95. Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Tarabees E (2011) Integrated evaluation of urban development suitability based on remote sensing and GIS techniques: contribution from analytic hierarchy process. Arab J Geosci 4(3):463–473Google Scholar
  96. Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Al-Kathery M, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD (2015) Assessment of rockfall hazard at Al-Noor Mountain, Makkah city (Saudi Arabia) using spatio-temporal remote sensing data and field investigation. J Afr Earth Sci 101:309–321Google Scholar
  97. Youssef AM, Sefry SA, Pradhan B, Al Fadail EA (2016) Analysis on causes of flash flood in Jeddah city (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) of 2009 and 2011 using multi-sensor remote sensing data and GIS. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 7(3):1018–1042Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hariklia D. Skilodimou
    • 1
  • George D. Bathrellos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Konstantinos Chousianitis
    • 2
  • Ahmed M. Youssef
    • 3
  • Biswajeet Pradhan
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Climatology, Faculty of Geology and GeoenvironmentNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensZografouGreece
  2. 2.Institute of GeodynamicsNational Observatory of AthensLofos NymfonGreece
  3. 3.Department of Geology, Faculty of ScienceSohag UniversitySohagEgypt
  4. 4.The Centre for Advanced Modelling and Geospatial Information Systems (CAMGIS), Faculty of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Energy and Mineral Resources EngineeringSejong UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations