Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, vol. 18, no. 6

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 6 (2024): Geomatics and Environmental Engineering

Date Log

Submitted
Feb 8, 2024
Accepted
Sep 29, 2024
Published
Dec 20, 2024
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Flood-susceptibility Analysis of Kolhapur City Using Frequency Ratio Model

https://doi.org/10.7494/geom.2024.18.6.23
Sudhir K. Powar
Shivaji University, Department of Geography, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4591-3084
Sachin S. Panhalkar
Shivaji University, Department of Geography, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India

Corresponding Author(s) : Sudhir K. Powar

sudhirpowar100@gmail.com

Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 6 (2024): Geomatics and Environmental Engineering

Abstract

Flooding is an inevitable but natural process that happens over the period of time; it not only endangers people’s health, wealth, and assets, but it has also a negative impact on a country’s economy. Hence, effective flood management is required in order to minimize the influence of flooding on human lives and livelihoods. The aim of this research is to use a frequency ratio model (FRM) to identify flood-susceptibility areas in the city of Kolhapur. The research was conducted in two parts. Initially, field-survey data was used to create a flood-inventory map. There were 255 flood locations identified throughout the research region; of these, 178 locations (70%) were used for training data, and 77 (30%) were used for verification purposes. The spatial database was then used; from this, ten flood contributing parameters were generated: slope, elevation, rainfall, distance from a river, a stream power index (SPI), a topographical wetness index (TWI), a topographical roughness index (TRI), a plan curvature and profile curvature, and land use/land cover. Finally, an FR model database was created for flood-susceptible mapping. The prepared database was separated into four flood-susceptibility zones: low susceptibility, medium susceptibility, high susceptibility, and very high susceptibility. About 26.08% of the land was classified as ‘very high susceptibility,’ while 21.18% was classified as ‘high susceptibility.’ The final flood-susceptibility map was verified by using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The results indicated that the method that was used in this study provided accurate results (with a success rate of 87%); this indicated an acceptable result for our flood-susceptibility zonation. Local administrations, researchers, and planners will benefit greatly from this flood-susceptibility analysis in developing flood-prevention plans.

Keywords

flood susceptibility frequency ratio model receiver operating characteristic curve geographic information system
Powar, S. K., & Panhalkar, S. S. (2024). Flood-susceptibility Analysis of Kolhapur City Using Frequency Ratio Model. Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, 18(6), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.7494/geom.2024.18.6.23
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Du J., Fang J., Xu W., Shi P.: Analysis of dry/wet conditions using the standardized precipitation index and its potential usefulness for drought/flood monitoring in Hunan Province China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, vol. 27(2), 2013, pp. 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-012-0589-6.
  2. Tehrany M.S., Shabani F., Jebur M.N., Hong H., Chen W., Xie X.: GIS-based spatial prediction of flood prone areas using standalone frequency ratio, logistic regression, weight of evidence and their ensemble techniques. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, vol. 8(2), 2017, pp. 1538–1561. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2017.1362038.
  3. Mishra K., Sinha R.: Flood risk assessment in the Kosi megafan using multi-criteria decision analysis: A hydro-geomorphic approach. Geomorphology, vol. 350, 2020, 106861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.106861.
  4. Prăvălie R., Costache R.: The vulnerability of the territorial-administrative units to the hydrological phenomena of risk (flash-floods). Case study: The subcarpathian sector of Buzău catchment. Analele Universității din Oradea. Seria Geografie, vol. 23(1), 2013, pp. 91–98.
  5. Sarkar D., Mondal P.: Flood vulnerability mapping using frequency ratio (FR) model: A case study on Kulik river basin, Indo-Bangladesh Barind region. Applied Water Science, vol. 10(1), 2020, 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1102-x.
  6. Costache R.: Flash-flood Potential Index mapping using weights of evidence, decision trees models and their novel hybrid integration. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, vol. 33(7), 2019, pp. 1375–1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00477-019-01689-9.
  7. Hirabayashi Y., Mahendran R., Koirala S., Konoshima L., Yamazaki D., Watanabe S., Kana S.: Global flood risk under climate change. Nature Climate Change, vol. 3(9), 2013, pp. 816–821. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1911.
  8. Wahlstrom M., Guha-Sapir D.: The Human Cost of Weather-related Disasters 1995–2015. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland.
  9. Gupta S., Javed A., Dutt D.: Economics of flood protection in India. Natural Hazards, vol. 28(1), 2003, pp. 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021142404009.
  10. Singh O., Kumar M.: Flood events, fatalities and damages in India from 1978 to 2006. Natural Hazards, vol. 69(3), 2013, pp. 1815–1834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0781-0.
  11. Singh O., Kumar M.: Flood occurrences, damages, and management challenges in India: A geographical perspective. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 10(5), 2017, 102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-2895-2.
  12. Cloke H.L., Pappenberger F.: Ensemble flood forecasting: A review. Journal of Hydrology, vol. 375(3–4), 2009, pp. 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.005.
  13. Khosravi K., Pradhan B., Pirasteh S., Jebur M.N., Tehrany M.S.: Flood susceptibility mapping using a novel ensemble weights-of-evidence and support vector machine models in GIS. Journal of Hydrology, vol. 534, 2016, pp. 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.008.
  14. Kia M.B., Pirasteh S., Pradhan B., Mahmud A.R., Sulaiman W.N.A., Moradi A.: An artificial neural network model for flood simulation using GIS: Johor River Basin Malaysia. Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 67(1), 2012, pp. 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1504-z.
  15. Samanta R.K., Bhunla G.S., Shit P.K., Pourghasemi H.R.: Flood susceptibility mapping using geospatial frequency ratio technique: A case study of Subarnarekha River Basin. India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, vol. 4(11), 2018, pp. 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0427-z.
  16. Alexander K., Hettiarachchi S., Ou Y., Sharma A.: Can integrated green spaces and storage facilities absorb the increased risk of flooding due to climate change in developed urban environments?. Journal of Hydrology, vol. 579, 2019, pp. 124–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124201.
  17. Bubeck P., Thieken A.H.: What helps people recover from floods? Insights from a survey among flood-affected residents in Germany. Regional Environmental Change, vol. 18(1), 2018, pp. 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1200-y.
  18. Huang K., Li X., Liu X., Seto K.C.: Projecting global urban land expansion and heat island intensification through 2050. Environmental Research Letters, vol. 14(11), 2019, 114037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4b71.
  19. Jahandideh-Tehrani M., Zhang H., Helfer F., Yu Y.: Review of climate change impacts on predicted river streamflow in tropical rivers. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 191(12), 2019, 752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7841-1.
  20. Serraj R., Pingali P.: Agriculture & Food Systems to 2050: Global Trends, Challenges and Opportunities. World Scientific Series in Grand Public Policy Challenges of the 21st Century, vol. 2, World Scientific, Singapore 2019. https://doi.org/10.1142/11212.
  21. Su J., Lü H., Zhu Y., Cui Y., Wang X.: Evaluating the hydrological utility of latest IMERG products over the Upper Huaihe River Basin, China. Atmospheric Research, vol. 225(1), 2019, pp. 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.03.025.
  22. Cao Q., Mehran A., Ralph F.M., Lettenmaier D.P.: The role of hydrological initial conditions on atmospheric river floods in the Russian River basin. Journal of Hydrometeorology, vol. 20(8), 2019, pp. 1667–1686. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-19-0030.1.
  23. Ali S.A., Khatun R., Ahmad A., Ahmad A.N.: Application of GIS-based analytic hierarchy process and frequency ratio model to flood vulnerable mapping and risk area estimation at Sundarban region, India. Modeling Earth System and Environment, vol. 5(3), 2019, pp. 1083–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-019-00593-z.
  24. Moel H.D., Vliet M.V., Aerts J.C.J.H.: Evaluating the effect of flood damagereducing measures: A case study of the unbanked area of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, vol. 14(3), 2014, pp. 895–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0420-z.
  25. Ebodé V.B., Onguéné R., Braun J.J.: Flood susceptibility analysis in the Tongo Bassa watershed through the Frequency Ratio Model. Hydrology Research, vol. 55(4), 2023, pp. 484–497. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2024.152.
  26. Ebodé V.B.: Hydrological variability and flood risk in a forest watershed undergoing accelerated urbanization. Water Supply, vol. 27(12), 2022, pp. 8778–8794. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2022.398.
  27. Haq M., Akhtar M., Muhammad S., Paras S., Rahmatullah J.: Techniques of Remote Sensing and GIS for flood monitoring and damage assessment: A case study of Sindh province, Pakistan. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, vol. 15(2), 2012, pp. 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2012.07.002.
  28. Tehrany M.S., Pradhan B., Juber M.N.: Flood susceptibility analysis and its verification using a novel ensemble support vector machine and frequency ratio method. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, vol. 29(4), 2015, pp. 1149–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1021-9.
  29. Dhote P.R., Joshi Y., Rajib A., Thakur P.K., Nikam B.R., Aggarwal S.P.: Evaluating topography-based approaches for fast floodplain mapping in data-scarce complex-terrain regions: Findings from a Himalayan basin. Journal of Hydrology, vol. 620(part A), 2023, 129309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129309.
  30. Lee M.J., Kang J.E., Jeon S.: Application of frequency ratio model and validation for predictive flooded area susceptibility mapping using GIS. [in:] IGARSS 2012: IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium: Remote Sensing for a Dynamic Earth: Proceedings: July 22–27, 2012, Munich, Germany, IEEE, Piscataway 2012, pp. 895–898. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2012.6351414.
  31. Jebur M.N., Pradhan B., Tehrany M.S.: Optimization of landslide conditioning factors using very high-resolution airborne laser scanning (LiDAR) data at catchment scale. Remote Sensing and Environment, vol. 152, 2014, pp. 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.05.013.
  32. Tien Bui D., Pradhan B., Lofman O., Revhaug I., Dick O.B:. Spatial prediction of landslide hazards in Hoa Binhprovince (Vietnam): A comparative assessment of the efficacy of evidential belief functions and fuzzy logic models. Catena, vol. 96, 2012, pp. 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2012.04.001.
  33. Rahmati O., Pourghasemi H.R., Zeinivand H.: Flood susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio and weights-of-evidence models in the Golastan Province, Iran. Geocarto International, vol. 31(1), 2016, pp. 42–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2015.1041559.
  34. Sujatha E.R., Rajamanickam V., Kumaravel P., Saranathan E.: Landslide susceptibility analysis using probabilistic likelihood ratio model – a geospatial-based study. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 6(2), 2013, pp. 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-011-0356-x.
  35. Tehrany M.S., Lee M.J., Pradhan B., Jebur M.N., Lee S.: Flood susceptibility mapping using integrated bivariate and multivariate statistical models. Environmental Earth Science, vol. 72(10), 2014, pp. 4001–4015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3289-3.
  36. Liao X., Carin L.: Migratory logistic regression for learning concept drift between two data sets with application to UXO sensing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 47(5), 2009, pp. 1454–1466. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2008.2005268.
  37. Manandhar B.: Flood plain analysis and risk assessment of Lothar Khola. Tribhuvan University, Phokara, Nepal, 2010 [MSc thesis].
  38. Pradhan B., Lee S.: Delineation of landslide hazard areas on Penang Island, Malaysia, by using frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models. Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 60(5), 2010, pp. 1037–1054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0245-8.
  39. Pourghasemi H.R., Beheshtirad M.: Assessment of a data-driven evidential belief function model and GIS for groundwater potential mapping in the Koohrang Watershed, Iran. Geocarto International, vol. 30(6), 2014, pp. 662–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2014.966161.
  40. Tunusluoglu M., Gokceoglu C., Nefeslioglu H., Sonmez H.: Extraction of potential debris source areas by logistic regression technique: A case study from Barla, Besparmak and Kapi mountains (NW Taurids, Turkey). Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 54(1), 2008, pp. 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0788-5.
  41. Samanta S., Pal D.K., Lohar D., Pal B.: Interpolation of climate variables and temperature modeling. Theoretical and Applied Climatolgy, vol. 107(1), 2012, pp. 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-011-0455-3.
  42. Youssef A.M., Pradhan B., Hassan A.M.: Flash flood risk estimation along the St. Katherine road, southern Sinai, Egypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imagery. Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 62(3), 2011, pp. 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0551-1.
  43. Ebodé V.B., Ngono Onana J.Y., Dzana J.G., Amougou J.A., Batha A., Boyomo T., Ndjela Mbeih G.: Availability of the current and future water resources in Equatorial Central Africa: Case of the Nyong forest catchment in Cameroon. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 196(3), 2024, 298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12471-y.
  44. Tehrany M.S., Pradhan B., Jebur M.N.: Spatial prediction of flood susceptible areas using rule based decision tree (DT) and a novel ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in GIS. Journal of Hydrology, vol. 504, 2013, pp. 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.09.034.
  45. Lee S., Kim J.C., Jung H.S., Lee M.J., Lee S.: Spatial prediction of flood susceptibility using random-forest and boosted-tree models in Seoul metropolitan city, Korea. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, vol. 8(2), 2017, pp. 1185–1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2017.1308971.
  46. Tehrany M.S., Jones S., Shabani F.: Identifying the essential flood conditioning factors for flood prone area mapping using machine learning techniques. Catena, vol. 175, 2019, pp. 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.12.011.
  47. Casas A., Lane S.N., Yu D., Benito G.: A method for parameterising roughness and topographic sub-grid scale effects in hydraulic modelling from LiDAR data. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, vol. 14(8), 2010, pp. 1567–1579. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-1567-2010.
  48. Moore I.D., Grayson R.B., Ladson A.R.: Digital terrain modelling: A review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrological Processes, vol. 5(1), 1991, pp. 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360050103.
  49. Haghizadeh A., Siahkamari S., Haghiabi A.H., Rahmati O.: Forecasting floodprone areas using Shannon’s entropy model. Journal of Earth System Science, vol. 126(3), 2017, 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-017-0819-x.
  50. Hong H., Tsnagaratos P., Ilia J., Liu J., Zhu A., Chen W.: Application of fuzzy weight of evidence and data mining techniques in construction of flood susceptibility map of Poyang County, China. Science of Total Environment, vol. 625, 2017, pp. 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.256.
  51. Lee S., Talib J.A.: Probabilistic landslide susceptibility and factor effect analysis. Environmental Geology, vol. 47(7), 2005, pp. 982–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-005-1228-z.
  52. Pradhan B., Buchroithner M.F.: Comparison and validation of landslide susceptibility maps using an artificial neural network model for three test areas in Malaysia. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, vol. 16(2), 2010, pp. 107–126. https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.16.2.107.
  53. Pourghasemi H.R., Pradhan B., Gokceoglu C.: Remote sensing data derived parameters and its use in landslide susceptibility assessment using Shannon’s entropy and GIS. Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 225, 2012, pp. 486–491. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.225.486.
  54. Chung C.F., Fabbri A.G.: Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Natural Hazards, vol. 30(3), 2003, pp. 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000007172.62651.2b.
  55. Tien Bui D., Pradhan B., Lofman O., Revhaug I., Dick O.B.: Landslide susceptibility mapping at Hoa Binh province (Vietnam) using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and GIS. Computers & Geosciences, vol. 45, 2012, pp. 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.10.031.
  56. Saha S.: Groundwater potential mapping using analytical hierarchical process: A study on Md. Bazar Block of Birbhum District, West Bengal. Spatial Information Research, vol. 25(4), 2017, pp. 615–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-017-0127-1.
  57. Ozdemir A., Altural T.: A comparative study of frequency ratio, weights of evidence and logistic regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping: Sultan Mountains, SW Turkey. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, vol. 64(5), 2013, pp. 180–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.12.014.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download this PDF file
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 80 Download : 30

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.