IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i12p535-d465814.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nationwide Susceptibility Mapping of Landslides in Kenya Using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Model

Author

Listed:
  • Suhua Zhou

    (National Center for International Research Collaboration in Building Safety and Environment, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
    College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China)

  • Shuaikang Zhou

    (College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China)

  • Xin Tan

    (National Center for International Research Collaboration in Building Safety and Environment, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
    College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China)

Abstract

Landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) is a cost-effective tool for landslide hazard mitigation. To date, no nationwide landslide susceptibility maps have been produced for the entire Kenyan territory. Hence, this work aimed to develop a landslide susceptibility map at the national level in Kenya using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method. First, a hierarchical evaluation index system containing 10 landslide contributing factors and their subclasses was established to produce a susceptibility map. Then, the weights of these indexes were determined through pairwise comparisons, in which triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) were employed to scale the relative importance based on the opinions of experts. Ultimately, these weights were merged in a hierarchical order to obtain the final landslide susceptibility map. The entire Kenyan territory was divided into five susceptibility levels. Areas with very low susceptibility covered 5.53% of the Kenyan territory, areas with low susceptibility covered 20.58%, areas with the moderate susceptibility covered 29.29%, areas with high susceptibility covered 29.16%, and areas with extremely high susceptibility covered 15.44% of Kenya. The resulting map was validated using an inventory of 425 historical landslides in Kenya. The results indicated that the TFN-AHP model showed a significantly improved performance (AUC = 0.86) compared with the conventional AHP (AUC = 0.72) in LSM for the study area. In total, 31.53% and 29.88% of known landslides occurred within the “extremely high” and “high” susceptibility zones, respectively. Only 8.24% and 1.65% of known landslides fell within the “low” and “very low” susceptibility zones, respectively. The map obtained as a result of this study is beneficial to inform planning and land resource management in Kenya.

Suggested Citation

  • Suhua Zhou & Shuaikang Zhou & Xin Tan, 2020. "Nationwide Susceptibility Mapping of Landslides in Kenya Using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-22, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:12:p:535-:d:465814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/12/535/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/12/535/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucas A. Dailey & Sven Fuhrmann, 2017. "GIS-Based Logistic Regression for Landslide Susceptibility Analysis in Western Washington State," International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research (IJAGR), IGI Global, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaojie Yang & Zhenli Hao & Keyuan Liu & Zhigang Tao & Guangcheng Shi, 2023. "An Improved Unascertained Measure-Set Pair Analysis Model Based on Fuzzy AHP and Entropy for Landslide Susceptibility Zonation Mapping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-28, April.
    2. Enrico Miccadei & Cristiano Carabella & Giorgio Paglia, 2022. "Landslide Hazard and Environment Risk Assessment," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-5, March.
    3. Naseem Ahmad & Muhammad Shafique & Mian Luqman Hussain & Fakhrul Islam & Aqil Tariq & Walid Soufan, 2024. "Characterization and Geomorphic Change Detection of Landslides Using UAV Multi-Temporal Imagery in the Himalayas, Pakistan," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-26, June.
    4. Farzam Tavankar & Rodolfo Picchio & Mehrdad Nikooy & Meghdad Jourgholami & Ramin Naghdi & Francesco Latterini & Rachele Venanzi, 2021. "Soil Natural Recovery Process and Fagus orientalis Lipsky Seedling Growth after Timber Extraction by Wheeled Skidder," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Lamek Nahayo & Cui Peng & Yu Lei & Rongzhi Tan, 2023. "Spatial understanding of historical and future landslide variation in Africa," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 119(1), pages 613-641, October.
    6. Bo Cao & Qingyi Li & Yuhang Zhu, 2022. "Comparison of Effects between Different Weight Calculation Methods for Improving Regional Landslide Susceptibility—A Case Study from Xingshan County of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-15, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benyou Jia & Slobodan P. Simonovic & Pingan Zhong & Zhongbo Yu, 2016. "A Multi-Objective Best Compromise Decision Model for Real-Time Flood Mitigation Operations of Multi-Reservoir System," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(10), pages 3363-3387, August.
    2. Pasura Aungkulanon & Walailak Atthirawong & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon & Wirachchaya Chanpuypetch, 2024. "Navigating Supply Chain Resilience: A Hybrid Approach to Agri-Food Supplier Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-42, May.
    3. Juan Carlos Martín & Veronika Rudchenko & María-Victoria Sánchez-Rebull, 2020. "The Role of Nationality and Hotel Class on Guests’ Satisfaction. A Fuzzy-TOPSIS Approach Applied in Saint Petersburg," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Jelena Lukić & Mirjana Misita & Dragan D. Milanović & Ankica Borota-Tišma & Aleksandra Janković, 2022. "Determining the Risk Level in Client Analysis by Applying Fuzzy Logic in Insurance Sector," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(18), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Sharma, Mahak & Antony, Rose & Sehrawat, Rajat & Cruz, Angel Contreras & Daim, Tugrul U., 2022. "Exploring post-adoption behaviors of e-service users: Evidence from the hospitality sector /online travel services," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    6. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    7. Chia-Nan Wang & Ngoc-Ai-Thy Nguyen & Thanh-Tuan Dang & Chen-Ming Lu, 2021. "A Compromised Decision-Making Approach to Third-Party Logistics Selection in Sustainable Supply Chain Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy VIKOR Methods," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-27, April.
    8. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    9. Lupo, Toni, 2015. "Fuzzy ServPerf model combined with ELECTRE III to comparatively evaluate service quality of international airports in Sicily," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 249-259.
    10. Lixin Shen & Kannan Govindan & Madan Shankar, 2015. "Evaluation of Barriers of Corporate Social Responsibility Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process under a Fuzzy Environment—A Textile Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-22, March.
    11. He-Yau Kang & Amy H. I. Lee & Tzu-Ting Huang, 2016. "Project Management for a Wind Turbine Construction by Applying Fuzzy Multiple Objective Linear Programming Models," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.
    12. Noori, Amir & Bonakdari, Hossein & Salimi, Amir Hossein & Gharabaghi, Bahram, 2021. "A group Multi-Criteria Decision-Making method for water supply choice optimization," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    13. Wang, Xiaojun & Chan, Hing Kai & Li, Dong, 2015. "A case study of an integrated fuzzy methodology for green product development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 212-223.
    14. Animesh Biswas & Samir Kumar, 2019. "Generalization of extent analysis method for solving multicriteria decision making problems involving intuitionistic fuzzy numbers," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 56(4), pages 1142-1166, December.
    15. Ezgi Güler & Süheyla Yerel Kandemir, 2024. "Analysis of PM 10 Substances via Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making and Statistical Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-23, September.
    16. Bojan Srdjevic & Yvonilde Medeiros, 2008. "Fuzzy AHP Assessment of Water Management Plans," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 22(7), pages 877-894, July.
    17. AbdulHafeez Muhammad & Ansar Siddique & Quadri Noorulhasan Naveed & Uzma Khaliq & Ali M. Aseere & Mohd Abul Hasan & Mohamed Rafik N. Qureshi & Basit Shahzad, 2021. "Evaluating Usability of Academic Websites through a Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, February.
    18. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.
    19. Nitidetch Koohathongsumrit & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon, 2022. "An integrated FAHP–ZODP approach for strategic marketing information system project selection," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 1792-1809, September.
    20. Deng, Yanfei & Xu, Jiuping & Liu, Ying & Mancl, Karen, 2014. "Biogas as a sustainable energy source in China: Regional development strategy application and decision making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 294-303.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:12:p:535-:d:465814. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.