4.7 Article

Identification of Critical Flood Prone Areas in Data-Scarce and Ungauged Regions: A Comparison of Three Data Mining Models

期刊

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 1473-1487

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-017-1589-6

关键词

Flood prone areas; Data mining; Non-structuralmeasure; GIS; Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flood is one of the most devastating natural disasters with socio-economic consequences. Thus, preparation of the flood prone areas (FPA) map is essential for flood disaster management, and for planning further development activities. The main goal of this study is to investigate new applications of the evidential belief function (EBF), random forest (RF), and boosted regression trees (BRT) models for identifying the FPA in the Galikesh region, Iran. This research was conducted in three main stages such as data preparation, flood susceptibility mapping using EBF, RF, and BRT models and validation of constructed models using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. At first, a flood inventory map was prepared using documentary sources of Iranian Water Resources Department (IWRD) and extensive field surveys. In total, 63 flood locations were identified in the study area. Of these, 47 (75%) floods were randomly selected as training/model building and the remaining 16 (25%) cases were used for the validation purposes. The flood conditioning factors considered in the study area are altitude, slope aspect, slope angle, topographic wetness index, plan curvature, geology, landuse, distance from rivers, drainage density, and soil texture. Subsequently, the FPA maps were prepared using EBF, RF, and BRT models in a GIS environment. Finally, the results were validated using ROC curve and area under the curve (AUC) analysis. From the analysis, it was seen that the EBF (AUC = 78.67%) and BRT models (AUC = 78.22%) performed better than RF model (AUC= 73.33%). Therefore, the resultant FPA maps can be useful for researchers and planner in flood mitigation strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据