GIS Multi-Criteria Analysis for Identifying and Mapping Forest Fire Hazard: Nevesinje, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

Fire risk management starts with an assessment of the most flammable places. In this paper, identification, classification and mapping of forest fire risk is completed with an aim of reducing the ratio and ecological damage caused by the fire. Suggested model is based on the combination of Geographical Information Systems and multi-criteria decision analysis using Analytic Hierarchy Process for mapping and assessment of forest fire risk in the area of Municipality Nevesinje, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The process was developed with an aid of 8 criteria grouped in four clusters. The weights are determined using AHP. Final map of forest fire risk is classified in 5 categories, from very low to very high risk, and indicates that 13.2% of Municipality area is in very high forest fire risk zone. The proposed method and the results of this study can be used for a policy of sustainable development at all levels of government.

Urban Spatial Risk Assessment of Fire from Fueling Stations on Buildings Case Study: Lubaga Division, Kampala City, Uganda

“…CR = CI/RCI, CR = 0.1012325/1.32, CR = 0.077. Using approach by [18], Table 1 was then drawn showing the influence of different parameters [19].…”

Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda

“…As depicted in Table 15, four studies employed compromise methods, as follows (i) COPRAS [153], (ii) TOPSIS [154,157], (iii) SAW and IFPPSI [154], and (iv) IOWA [161]. The remaining studies applied outranking methods (PROMETHEE and ELECTRE [154,161] and the multi-objective ZOGP [159] For the achievement of SDGs belonging to this category, several applications of MCDM methods reported in 36 studies are presented and discussed here, as follows: SDG 6-"Clean Water and Sanitation" [162][163][164][165][166][167][168], SDG 13-"Climate Action" [169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182], SDG 14-"Life below Water" [183][184][185][186][187][188], and SDG 15-"Life on Land" [189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197].…”

“…As shown in Table 18, the combination of MCDM methods with non-MCDM methods (Delphi technique, SWOT analysis, Genetic Algorithm, and Geographical Information Systems) was adopted by most of the reviewed articles [183][184][185][186] 19 presents the reviewed articles' findings that addressed issues associated with SDG 15 [189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197].…”

“…Five studies combined MCDM methods (utility-based, compromise, or outranking) with Geographical Information Systems [189,191,193,195,196]. By way of illustration, Ahmadi Sani et al [189] adopted an AHP-GIS approach to rank alternative land uses in Zagros (Iran) to improve the management of vulnerable ecosystems and prevent further degradation and increasing sustainability of land use in that region.…”

“…In summary, five studies used a utility-based method (AHP), combined or not with non-MCDM methods [189,192,193,196,197], while two applied compromise methods (S-TOPSIS and TOPSIS) [191,194] and the remaining employed a multi-objective method (Goal Programming) and an outranking method (PROMETHEE) [190,195] respectively.…”