4.6 Article

GIS-multicriteria decision analysis for landslide susceptibility mapping: comparing three methods for the Urmia lake basin, Iran

Journal

NATURAL HAZARDS
Volume 65, Issue 3, Pages 2105-2128

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-012-0463-3

Keywords

Landslide susceptibility; Multicriteria evaluation; GIS-multicriteria decision analysis; Uncertainty analysis; Urmia lake basin; Iran

Funding

  1. Department of Geoinformatics (Z_GIS) University of Salzburg
  2. Iranian Ministry of Science, Research and Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The GIS-multicriteria decision analysis (GIS-MCDA) technique is increasingly used for landslide hazard mapping and zonation. It enables the integration of different data layers with different levels of uncertainty. In this study, three different GIS-MCDA methods were applied to landslide susceptibility mapping for the Urmia lake basin in northwest Iran. Nine landslide causal factors were used, whereby parameters were extracted from an associated spatial database. These factors were evaluated, and then, the respective factor weight and class weight were assigned to each of the associated factors. The landslide susceptibility maps were produced based on weighted overly techniques including analytic hierarchy process (AHP), weighted linear combination (WLC) and ordered weighted average (OWA). An existing inventory of known landslides within the case study area was compared with the resulting susceptibility maps. Respectively, Dempster-Shafer Theory was used to carry out uncertainty analysis of GIS-MCDA results. Result of research indicated the AHP performed best in the landslide susceptibility mapping closely followed by the OWA method while the WLC method delivered significantly poorer results. The resulting figures are generally very high for this area, but it could be proved that the choice of method significantly influences the results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available