Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integration of GIS, AHP and TOPSIS for earthquake hazard analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Worldwide, earthquakes and related disasters have persistently had severe negative impacts on human livelihoods and have caused widespread socioeconomic and environmental damage. The severity of these disasters has prompted recognition of the need for comprehensive and effective disaster and emergency management (DEM) efforts, which are required to plan, respond to and develop risk mitigation strategies. In this regard, recently developed methods, known as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), have been widely used in DEM domains by emergency managers to greatly improve the quality of the decision-making process, making it more participatory, explicit, rational and efficient. In this study, MCDA techniques of the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), integrated with GIS, were used to produce earthquake hazard and risk maps for earthquake disaster monitoring and analysis for a case study region of Küçükçekmece in Istanbul, Turkey. The five main criteria that have the strongest influence on the impact of earthquakes on the study region were determined: topography, distance to epicentre, soil classification, liquefaction and fault/focal mechanism. AHP was used to determine the weights of these parameters, which were also used as input into the TOPSIS method and GIS (ESRI ArcGIS) for simulating these outputs to produce earthquake hazard maps. The resulting earthquake hazard maps created by both the AHP and TOPSIS models were compared, showing high correlation and compatibility. To estimate the elements at risk, population and building data were used with the AHP and TOPSIS hazard maps for potential loss assessment; thus, we demonstrated the potential of integrating GIS with AHP and TOPSIS in generating hazard maps for effective earthquake disaster and risk management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambraseys NN (1995) The prediction of earthquake peak ground acceleration in Europe. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24(4):467–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behzadian M, Otaghsara SK, Yazdani M, Ignatius J (2012) A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl 39(17):13051–13069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan N, Rai K (2004) Strategic decision making: apply the analytical hierarchy process. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):128–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boran FE, Genç S, Kurt M, Akay D (2009) A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 36(8):11363–11368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çetinkaya C, Özceylan E, Erbaş M, Kabak M (2016) GIS-based fuzzy MCDA approach for siting refugee camp: a case study for southeastern Turkey. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 18:218–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen K, Blong R, Jacobson C (2003) Towards an integrated approach to natural hazards risk assessment using GIS: with reference to bushfires. Environ Manag 31(4):0546–0560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu TC, Lin YC (2002) Improved extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision making under fuzzy environment. J Inf Optim Sci 23(2):273–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Dharmarajan R, Sharmila C (2016) The evaluation of topsis and fuzzy-topsis method for decision making system in data mining. Int Res J Eng Technol (IRJET) 3:9

    Google Scholar 

  • EM-DAT (2016) International disaster database. Catholic University of Louvain: Brussels, Belgium. http://www.emdat.be. Accessed 20 Mar 2017

  • Erden T (2012) Disaster and emergency management activities by geospatial tools with special reference to Turkey. Disaster Adv 5(1):29–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Erden T, Coskun MZ (2010) Multi-criteria site selection for fire services: the interaction with analytic hierarchy process and geographic information systems. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 10(10):2127–2134. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-2127-2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erden T, Karaman H (2012) Analysis of earthquake parameters to generate hazard maps by integrating AHP and GIS for Küçükçekmece region. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 12(2):475–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdik M, Doyuran V, Akkaş N, Gülkan P (1985) A probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in Turkey. Tectonophysics 117(3–4):295–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti V (2011) Integrating Multicriteria Analysis and Geographic Information Systems: a survey and classification of the literature. In: 74th meeting of the European working group “multiple criteria decision aiding”

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision-making. In: Beckmann M, Künzi HP (eds) Multiple attribute decision making. Springer, Berlin, pp 58–191

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1099-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Krohling RA, Campanharo VC (2011) Fuzzy TOPSIS for group decision making: a case study for accidents with oil spill in the sea. Expert Syst Appl 38(4):4190–4197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J (1996) A GIS-based approach to multiple criteria group decision-making. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 10(8):955–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J (2006) GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20(7):703–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J, Rinner C (2015) Multicriteria decision analysis in geographic information science. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maliki A, Owen G, Bruce D (2012) Combining AHP and TOPSIS approaches to support site selection for a lead pollution study. In: 2nd international conference on environmental and agriculture engineering IPCBEE 37 IACSIT Press, Singapore

  • Marza VI (2004) On the death toll of the 1999 Izmit (Turkey) major earthquake. ESC General Assembly Papers, European Seismological Commission, Potsdam

  • Najafabadi RM, Ramesht MH, Ghazi I, Khajedin SJ, Seif A, Nohegar A, Mahdavi A (2016) Identification of natural hazards and classification of urban areas by TOPSIS model (case study: Bandar Abbas city, Iran). Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 7(1):85–100

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3089-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk D, Batuk F (2011) Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) for spatial decision problems. In: Proceedings ISPRS

  • Parsons T (2004) Recalculated probability of M ≥ 7 earthquakes beneath the Sea of Marmara. Turk J Geophys Res Solid Earth 1978–2012:109

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira JM, Duckstein L (1993) A multiple criteria decision-making approach to GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 7(5):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirdavani A, Brijs T, Geert W (2009) A multiple criteria decision making approach for prioritizing accident hotspots in the absence of crash data. Transp Rev 30(1):97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin X (2013) Local ideal point method for gis-based multicriteria analysis: a case study in London, Ontario (Master’s Thesis). University of Western Ontario, Canada

  • Rao RV (2007) Decision making in the manufacturing environment: using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashed T, Weeks J (2003) Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria analysis of urban areas. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 17(6):547–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roshan G, Ghanghermeh A, Grab SW (2018) Testing a new application for TOPSIS: monitoring drought and wet periods in Iran. Theor Appl Climatol 131(1–2):557–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning setting priorities, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Lozano JM, Teruel-Solano J, Soto-Elvira PL, García-Cascales MS (2013) Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of solar farms locations: case study in South-Eastern Spain. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 24:544–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarvar H, Amini J, Laleh-Poor M (2011) Assessment of risk caused by earthquake in region 1 of Tehran using the combination of RADIUS, TOPSIS and AHP models. J Civ Eng Urban 1:39–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth AW, Altay G, Deodatis G, Erdik M, Franco G, Gülkan P, Yüzügüllü O (2004) Probabilistic benefit-cost analysis for earthquake damage mitigation: evaluating measures for apartment houses in Turkey. Earthq Spectra 20(1):171–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugumaran R, DeGroote J (2011) Spatial decision support systems: principles and practices. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169(1):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voogd H (1982) Multicriteria evaluation with mixed qualitative and quantitative data. Environ Plan 9(2):221–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM, Elhag TM (2006) Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Syst Appl 31(2):309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang TC, Lee HD (2009) Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Syst Appl 36(5):8980–8985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yagoub MM (2015) Spatio-temporal and hazard mapping of Earthquake in UAE (1984–2012): remote sensing and GIS application. Geoenviron Disasters 2(1):13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M (1982) Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geomatics Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, 34469, Istanbul, Turkey

    Penjani Hopkins Nyimbili, Turan Erden & Himmet Karaman

Authors
  1. Penjani Hopkins Nyimbili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Turan Erden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Himmet Karaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Turan Erden.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource 1

ArcGIS python script for AHP Model in ModelBuilder (PY 9 kb)

Online Resource 2

ArcGIS python script for TOPSIS Model in ModelBuilder (PY 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nyimbili, P.H., Erden, T. & Karaman, H. Integration of GIS, AHP and TOPSIS for earthquake hazard analysis. Nat Hazards 92, 1523–1546 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3262-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3262-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation