Flood-based critical sub-watershed mapping: comparative application of multi-criteria decision making methods and hydrological modeling approach

• Published in: Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment Vol. 37; no. 7; pp. 2757 - 2775
• Main Authors: Nasiri Khiavi, Ali, Vafakhah, Mehdi, Sadeghi, Seyed Hamidreza
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.07.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Algorithms; Analytic hierarchy process; Aquatic Pollution; Chemistry and Earth Sciences; Computational Intelligence; Computer Science; Decision analysis; Decision making; Decision theory; Earth and Environmental Science; Earth Sciences; Environment; Flood control; Flood management; Flood mapping; Floods; Game theory; Hydrology; Math. Appl. in Environmental Science; Mathematical analysis; Modelling; Multiple criteria decision making; Multiple criterion; Original Paper; Physics; Probability Theory and Stochastic Processes; Statistics for Engineering; Waste Water Technology; Water Management; Water Pollution Control; Watersheds; Multivariate technique; Optimal decision making; Flood management; Flood modeling; Prioritization technique
• ISSN: 1436-3240; 1436-3259
• DOI: 10.1007/s00477-023-02417-0

The effects of Sub-Watersheds (SWs) on each other can be more important in Flood Generation Potential (FGP). Therefore, the present study aims for prioritizing SWs based on FGP using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods including Game Theory (GT), Best-Worst Method (BWM), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Analytical Network Process (ANP), Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), Fuzzy Analytical Network Process (FANP) and comparing its results with Hydrological Modeling Approach (HMA) in the Cheshmeh-Kileh Watershed, Iran. In GT, Condorcet algorithm were used. The best and worst criteria were identified using the BWM and compared with other criteria. In AHP and ANP, expert opinions were used and the final weight of criteria and alternative was calculated using Expert Choice and Super Decision softwares. In HMA, HEC-HMS software was used to calculate the discharge with return periods of 10- and 100-year, and finally, in all methods, FGP maps were prepared in three classes and SWs were prioritized. Based on the results of different methods, SWs 9, 2, 7, 10 and 11 were given high FGP priority. There are two possible explanations for this result. The first explanation is the difference between the values of geo-environmental criteria in each SW, and the ratio of these values and the effect of each of these criteria on the FGP. The next explanation is due to the different structural nature of each of the MCDM, which caused different prioritization of SWs based on FGP. Downstream SWs were also in a non-critical state due to dense forest cover and low slope. A comparative evaluation between the methods showed that BWM had the same result as the field evidence and HMA results and this method provided the best result. Based on SWs prioritization in BWM, high and low FGP were 33.33 and 46.67% of the study area, respectively. After BWM, GT gave a relatively good result. AHP, ANP, FAHP and FANP presented different results, but had poor performance in identifying critical areas. This study showed that optimal MCDM approaches can be used for flood management.