2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-021-09282-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of flood risk analyses with AHP, Kriging, and weighted sum models: example of Çapakçur, Yeşilköy, and Yamaç microcatchments

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This included spatial interpolation [59][60][61] of the temperature and precipitation data to smooth the data and unify the spatial resolution of all indicator data to 100 m. The third step was to perform weighted calculations on the assessment data to obtain the final assessment scores. Specifically, the indicator data were assigned values according to the classification standards of the indicator level, and the indicator scores were weighted and summed using the weighted sum equation [62][63][64] (see Equation ( 1)) to obtain the criterion level scores. The criterion level scores were then weighted and summed using the weighted sum equation (see Equation ( 2)) to obtain the final assessment scores.…”
Section: Comprehensive Assessment and Classification Standardsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This included spatial interpolation [59][60][61] of the temperature and precipitation data to smooth the data and unify the spatial resolution of all indicator data to 100 m. The third step was to perform weighted calculations on the assessment data to obtain the final assessment scores. Specifically, the indicator data were assigned values according to the classification standards of the indicator level, and the indicator scores were weighted and summed using the weighted sum equation [62][63][64] (see Equation ( 1)) to obtain the criterion level scores. The criterion level scores were then weighted and summed using the weighted sum equation (see Equation ( 2)) to obtain the final assessment scores.…”
Section: Comprehensive Assessment and Classification Standardsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They found that the greatest impact was in the precipitation criterion. Meral and Eroğlu, (2021) conducted flood risk analysis using the AHP method. They used a total of 7 criteria in the AHP process: slope, aspect, distance to the stream, land use, geology, soil, and precipitation.…”
Section: The Flood Risk Analysis Using Ahpmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results obtained were correlated by considering the soil loss classes of the microcatchment. The Çapakçur microcatchment, the study area, is an area with high erosion risk (Yüksel & Avcı, 2015;Meral & Eroğlu, 2021), and the annual soil loss is above the Turkey average (Demir, 2020;. Therefore, best soil management and soil conservation management practices are carried out to be implemented in many watersheds, such as the Çapakçur microcatchment in Turkey.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%