GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Approach For Flood Vulner

Article
GIS‐Based Multi‐Criteria Approach for Flood Vulnerability

Assessment and Mapping in District Shangla: Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
Muhammad Hussain 1, Muhammad Tayyab 1, Jiquan Zhang 1,2,3,*, Ashfaq Ahmad Shah 4, Kashif Ullah 1,5,
Ummer Mehmood 1 and Bazel Al‐Shaibah 1
1 Institute of Natural Disaster Research, School of Environment, Northeast Normal University,

Changchun 130024, China; huse149@nenu.edu.cn (M.H.); Tayyabfarooqicdpm@gmail.com (M.T.);
kashifkhan742@yahoo.com (K.U.); mehmoodummer90@gmail.com (U.M.);
alshaibah123@gmail.com (B.A.‐S.)
2 Key Laboratory for Vegetation Ecology, Ministry of Education, Changchun 130024, China
3 State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Vegetation Restoration,
Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China

4 Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters (CIC‐FEMD), School of Management Science
and Engineering, Ministry of Education & Collaborative Innovation, Nanjing University of Information
Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China; shahaa@cau.edu.cn
5 Institute of Geophysics and Geomatics, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
* Correspondence: zhangjq022@nenu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86‐135‐9608‐6467; Fax: +86‐431‐8916‐5624
Abstract: Floods are considered one of the world’s most overwhelming hydro meteorological dis‐
asters, which cause tremendous environmental and socioeconomic damages in a developing
Citation: Hussain, M.; Tayyab, M.;
Zhang, J.; Shah, A.A.; Ullah, K.;
country such as Pakistan. In this study, we use a Geographic information system (GIS)‐based mul‐
Mehmood, U.; Al‐Shaibah, B. ti‐criteria approach to access detailed flood vulnerability in the District Shangla by incorporating
GIS‐Based Multi‐Criteria Approach the physical, socioeconomic vulnerabilities, and coping capacity. In the first step, 21 essential cri‐
for Flood Vulnerability Assessment teria were chosen under three vulnerability components. To support the analytical hierarchy pro‐
and Mapping in District Shangla: cess (AHP), the used criteria were transformed, weighted, and standardized into spatial thematic
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. layers. Then a weighted overlay technique was used to build an individual map of vulnerability
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3126. https:// components. Finally, the integrated vulnerability map has been generated from the individual
doi.org/10.3390/su13063126 maps and spatial dimensions of vulnerability levels have been identified successfully. The results
demonstrated that 25% of the western‐middle area to the northern part of the study area comprises
Academic Editor: Fabio Carlucci
high to very high vulnerability because of the proximity to waterways, high precipitation, eleva‐
tion, and other socioeconomic factors. Although, by integrating the coping capacity, the west‐
Received: 20 February 2021
ern‐central and northern parts of the study area comprising from high to very high vulnerability.
Accepted: 5 March 2021
Published: 12 March 2021
The coping capacities of the central and eastern areas are higher as compared to the northern and
southern parts of the study area because of the numerous flood shelters and health complexes. A
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu‐ qualitative approach from the field validated the results of this study. This study’s outcomes
tral with regard to jurisdictional would help disaster managers, decision makers, and local administration to quantify the spatial
claims in published maps and insti‐ vulnerability of flood and establish successful mitigation plans and strategies for flood risk as‐
tutional affiliations. sessment in the study area.
Keywords: geography information system; flood vulnerability; remote sensing; analytical hierar‐
chy process (AHP); Pakistan
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
1. Introduction
Attribution (CC BY) license Floods are considered one of the most catastrophic hydro meteorological disasters.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses Such catastrophes frequently triggering enormous monetary and environmental de‐
/by/4.0/). struction and deaths [1]. About 2.3 billion inhabitants have been affected, and 157,000
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063126 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 3126 2 of 30
lost their lives because of floods between the year 1995–2015 as estimated by the United
Nations [2,3]. Over the past three decades of the 20th century, floods have caused nearly
USD 386 billion in economic loss worldwide. The 2013 Inter Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) suggests that a significant proportion of the planet indicated progression in un‐
expected catastrophes, including droughts, severe temperatures, and average precipita‐
tions of varying magnitude [4,5]. Countries such as China, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, and
Pakistan have experienced devastating floods in the last three decades [6,7]. Several re‐
cent research estimates predict that the impact and severity of flood events would in‐
crease substantially in future climate scenarios [8–16]. In addition to that, the flood risks
would be exacerbated by more factors like swift urbanization [17], population growth,
and economic development [1]. As a result, residents, along with their properties and the
environment, would in the future be constantly at risk [18].
The assessment of vulnerability to climate change and extreme events such as floods
is important to support risk mitigation and sustainable adaptation strategies [19]. In dis‐
aster‐sensitive countries like Pakistan, disaster management focuses primarily on disas‐
ter assistance, crisis response, and recovery. Several studies have shown that paradigm
changes from catastrophe assistance, and come back to disaster risk and liability dimi‐
nution [20,21]. Deriving spatially consistent information on vulnerability indicators can
help to evaluate and map the various scope of vulnerability across space and time to es‐
tablish effective mitigation strategies [1]. Vulnerability assessment and mapping would
provide a clear picture of the ground reality and display the degree to which population;
capital, assets, and location are likely to be impacted by the hazard [22,23]. The devel‐
opment of appropriate vulnerability indices, indicators, and their integration is vital for
flood vulnerability assessment in terms of achieving a real vulnerability scenario [24–26].
The provision of data and mapping information on various components of vulnerability,
such as physical, coping capacity, and socioeconomic vulnerability might be used by
legislators for successful administrative strategies targeting reductions as well as antici‐
patory maneuvers [7,27,28]. Flood hazard management and mitigation strategies play a
crucial role in the sustainability and growth of the physical and socioeconomic climate of
the country or region [21,29]. The vulnerability assessment can, therefore, lead to mitigate
the flood impacts on the environment, property, and community.
In recent decades, the flood intensity and effects have resulted in a variety of studies
and approaches in various countries, such as the USA [16], Slovakia [30], India [31], and
Germany [32]. The flood vulnerability assessment was intensified by modifying different
parameters, indexes, and indicators, as shown by the GIS space performance platform
[33–35]. Vulnerability mapping has been a significant concern of global environmental
sustainability and research communities in recent decades [23,34,36]. A comprehensive
flood vulnerability assessment in broad‐based techniques is complex due to its ambigu‐
ous concepts of vulnerability. However, the specific variables according to availability of
the data that capture the necessary and decisive factor aggregation, scale which reflects
and find out accurate vulnerability information is important [17,19]. The credibility of
vulnerability is boosted by choosing the appropriate variables for each vulnerability
components [37]. It is pertinent to remember that absolute flood protection is not possi‐
ble, although the best possible flood mitigation plan can be implemented with the help of
vulnerability assessment of an area [38,39]. The maps created from vulnerability evalua‐
tion could be utilized by disaster managers for constructive administration plans aiming
for disaster reduction and preventive measures. According to UNISDR, 2019 [40] the
natural hazards and vulnerability mapping is important to step towards the reduction of
disaster effects. Several models, hypotheses, and modelling tactics have been developed
to assess the vulnerabilities of disasters, but an inclusive flood pattern is unique in liter‐
ature, as most of the current studies are based on limited regional criteria [22,29,41].
In the vulnerability analysis, the main subject in the target field is the selection of the
appropriate variables [41]. Vulnerability is usually focused on the social, physical, eco‐
nomic, and political aspects which might lead an individual, community, or institution to
a frantic hazard and threat acquaintance [19]. Distinctions in the segment, societal, fi‐
nancial, and political efficiency of the general public can have an impact on the effect of a
flood and on the ability of communities to cope with a disaster [42]. The vulnerability
cannot be effectively defined without taking into account coping capacity, because the
coping capacity of the confined population, the adjacent environment, and the resources
have a foremost role to cooperate in the protection and reduction of flood effects [1,43].
Consequently, it is important to reach a definite outcome that integrates coping capacity
for vulnerability assessment and mapping [32,44]. There are hardly any studies in the
present disaster literature that use the GIS‐based multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
technique for the adoption of coping capacities in spatial vulnerability assessments and
mapping in Pakistan.
Pakistan is a country that is exposed to a range of flood hazards, earthquakes, land‐
slides, drought, water‐logging, and salinity [45]. Every year, floods have caused a huge
loss of life, agricultural land, and other assets in flood‐prone areas. Disaster literature
indicates that Pakistan has suffered from floods almost 67 times since 1900 [5,46]. In Pa‐
kistan, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province is prone to different climate‐related dis‐
asters due to its distinctive geography [47]. The environmental and climate‐related
changes further increase the susceptibility of the region to other hazards. The flood in KP
mostly occurred due to heavy rainfall in the catchment of river Indus, river Kabul, and
river Swat. The province faced several floods in the last few decades in early 1976, 1982,
1988, 1992, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2014 [48]. The topography of the northern and
north‐eastern parts of the province is mostly mountainous, spreading from District
Chitral upper to District Shangla, which is vulnerable to floods [47,48]. According to the
District Disaster Management Plan (DDPM) Shangla, the catastrophe flood of (2010) af‐
fected 11500 households, 200 life losses, 1000 people got injured and caused more socio‐
economic damages. The District was not rehabilitated from the previous flood; another
flood of 2014 and 2016 hit the region and caused 22 deaths, 281 injuries, and more infra‐
structural as well as economic damages [48]. Due to the frequency and intensity of flood
impacts, the researchers have performed a range of studies from various perspectives of
the flood phenomenon [25,47,49,50]. Most of them considered certain parameters that
apply exclusively to the causes of flood hazards and their socioeconomic impacts. There
have been only a few studies available in KP on vulnerability assessment [8,21,35,51]. For
instance, Jamshed et al. [51] has made an effort to access the empirical connection be‐
tween vulnerability and capability by using an index‐based approach. Rana and Routray
[21] studied three urban center populations and classified family units at various risk
levels, such as risk control, survival, and coping, but their studies include theoretical
conceptualization rather than statistical measurement or expert evaluation of weight al‐
location. Shah et al. [8] used three components of vulnerability, such as exposure, sus‐
ceptibility, and adaptive capacity, to assess local inhabitants’ vulnerability to flooding
disasters. However, we have not come across a single study that uses a robust GIS plat‐
form approach to map out flood vulnerable areas by integrating physical, socioeconomic
vulnerabilities, and coping capacity. Consequently, we have tried to access vulnerability
across the target region in this study while using vulnerability mapping via GIS‐based
the multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA).
1.1. GIS‐Based MCDA

Evaluating multifaceted concerns varies over the course priorities and requirements;
MCDA has a number of measures to address the complex problem across space. The
spatial decision problem usually engaged a large number of conflicting criteria and al‐
ternatives evaluation. Different decision‐makers evaluate this criterion and alternatives
with special concerns related to the relative importance of each choice. Therefore, for
these kinds of spatial problems, the researchers are focused on GIS‐based MCDA, where
GIS provides the tools for integrating geo‐spatial data while MCDA presents an extensive
collection of techniques to the issue in a simple hierarchal way [52,53]. According to
Malczewski (2006), in the past several years of the 20th century, the incorporation of GIS
with MCDA has drawn the attention of scientific communities. It brings a significant
consideration from conventional approaches towards advanced research methodologies.
The underlying inspiration from the selected literature [1,54–56] shows that MCDA in the
GIS potentialities makes the researcher capable of take‐out a timely decision and proper
planning for any hazard. In the MCDA techniques, the analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) is one of the most commonly utilized and accepted methods from several decades
since the beginning. It has been practical to address a broad decision‐making problem
involving a wide range of criteria to be expressed to achieve the most optimum solution
and end product through an organized estimation process from existing alternatives [55].
Currently, AHP has an inspirational significance, particularly with the incorporation of
GIS and remote sensing, within the scientific community, especially in environmental
science, forestry, transport, agricultural practices, water conservation and management,
geology, and urban planning and management [30].
AHP has many privileges over other multi‐criteria decision analysis approaches,
being tolerating the obvious transactions and relationships between features and attrib‐
utes. Furthermore, with the advantage of accessibility and scientific nature, AHP has
been well‐founded and implemented by many researchers and practitioners in a wide
range of fields [34,54,57]. The geo‐spatial approach combining remote sensing and spatial
analysis is a very useful technique for drawing spatial flood vulnerability drivers, as
remote sensing keeps the capacity to produce frequent satellite images for geographical
environmental data, where spatial inspection help out in the compilation, investigation,
and amalgamation of numerous spatial data sets [29,58].
1.2. Objectives of the Study

District Shangla is one of the least developed District in Pakistan which is exposed to
several natural hazards. Among various natural hazards, flood is the deadliest hydro‐
meteorological hazard in the region and has brought a serious threat to the lives and
property of local residents, and it has brought immeasurable influence on local economic
construction and social security, which restricts the steady development of local produc‐
tion and life. This research seeks to devise and evaluate a multi‐criteria integrated
method to the assessment of flood effects employing AHP, which includes spatial analy‐
sis data combining GIS and statistical analysis, remote optical sensing, and field‐level
data on coping response as well as validation data. The main objective with the second‐
ary one of the current research study is the following:
1. To access detailed flood vulnerability in District Shangla by incorporating the
physical, socioeconomic vulnerabilities, and coping capacity using a GIS‐based
multi‐criteria approach.
2. To define the most influential factors affecting vulnerability in the District Shangla,
a local administrative region of KP, Pakistan.
1.3. Description of the Study Site

This study has been carried out in District Shangla, a local administrative region of
KP, Pakistan. The study area extends over 1586 km2 and ranges from 34–31° to 33–08°
north latitude and 72–33° to 73–01° east latitude, as shown in (Figure 1). The District lies
on the east side of Batagram and Torghar, on the west side of district SWAT, on the
south side of the Buner and Torghar districts, and the Kohistan district’s north side. The
major river and streams of the study area are the Indus River, Khan Khwar, Lilownai
Khwar, Sargar Khwar, Lal Khan Khwar, Amnavi Khwar, Chakisar Khwar, and Puran
Khwar, with many adjoining torrents and Nullahs. The Indus River divides the District
from the Kohistan, Batagram, and Torghar districts and flows approximately 75 km in
the East of the study area [59]. The Khan Khwar flows from the North and joins the river
Indus in the east. The Lilownai Khwar starts from the West side of the study area, which
joins the river Indus at the East. At the same time, the other streams flow in different di‐
rections of the study area, as shown in supplementary materials (Figure S1). On one
hand, these rivers and streams and are the primary sources of irrigation and electricity
production in the study area. While on the other side, it generates a flood causing dam‐
ages to agricultural land and more socioeconomic effects.
Figure 1. Study area map of District Shangla; Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
According to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, the District’s overall population is

estimated to be 757,810, with 385,741 males and 372,338 females. The aggregate number
of households in the study area is 89,695 with an average family unit size of 8.1 persons
per family and an average annual growth rate of 2.96%.
The landscape of the District is characterized by high mountains and narrow val‐
leys in the western extremities of the Himalayas. Climatically, the study region falls in
the tropical sub‐humid zone, and receives a significant amount of rainfall from the
summer monsoon, while in winter the higher altitude receives snowfall [60]. The aver‐
age annual rainfall ranges from 1200 mm to 1600 mm [61]. The snow melts at higher al‐
titudes due to rise in temperature and summer rainfall in (June to September) as a result
the lower catchments areas get flooded. The climatic phenomenon of the study area is
shown in supplementary materials (Figure S2). The diagram is modified and adopted
from Allen et al. [15]. The overall elevation of the District is 2000 to 3500 m above sea
level. Farming is a major income‐generating activity that depends upon rainwater and
only 2% of the cultivated area depends on irrigation channels [62]. The natural forest
occupied the site up to 49.9% [63]. Soil types in the study area are sandy loam to clay soil
in most of the regions. The surface geology consists of Alluvium, Greenschist Melange,
Jabrai Granite Gneiss, Alpuraicalc‐mica‐garnet schist, Karora Group, Besham Group,
Manglaur Formation, Darwaza Sar Potassic Granite Gneiss, and Jijal Ultramafics. The li‐
thology of the area multifaceted and has diverse rock types [60].
The socioeconomic indicators for the particular study area are relatively low. For
instance, the literacy rate is 14.5% [64]. The District is ranked top of the other KP districts
and second in Pakistan compared to scarcity, with 90% of the population living at a low
standard of living due to extreme poverty [65]. In the last few years, extremely natural
and anthropogenic events such as earthquakes, floods, terrorism, etc., have significantly
affected the region. For instance, the earthquake struck the area on 8 October 2005,
where 444 people died, and 1925 were wounded. Consequently, the reactions of floods,
disrupt the socioeconomic conditions significantly and have put them at the top of haz‐
ard priority [66].
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Method Overview
The flood vulnerability assessment and mapping are some of the approaches that
may be utilized for modelling disaster risk managing, forecasting, prevention, and miti‐
gation [40]. In the current study, different parameters were chosen under three vulnera‐
bility components based on extensive literature [1,7,28,29,67,68]. Both primary and sec‐
ondary data have been obtained and scrutinized for recent research. To figure out the
vulnerability components attributed to flood causes and impacts; census, agriculture,
education, and health data were used. Digital Elevation Model (D.E.M.) of 30 m resolu‐
tion was used to conduct slope analysis, elevation extraction, and streams order. Simi‐
larly, precipitation data were obtained from an online open‐source of National Aero‐
nautics and Space Administration (NASA) and was analyzed for precipitation variability
in the study area [58]. All the variables were put together in each vulnerability compo‐
nent for the preparation of thematic layers. Each layer values were in different units, to
convert all values into a standard scale (0, 1), standardization was conducted. Then all
values were classified into five classes (very low to very high). All the classified values
were prepared for a multi‐criteria evaluation strategy based on AHP and were executed
to consolidate a few common, socioeconomic, and physical criteria along with a combi‐
nation of coping capacity parameters that were taken for flood vulnerability appraisal
[67]. Spatial analysis in Arcmap (v10.2.2) was carried out; as a result, three individual
maps (physical, socioeconomic, and coping capacity) were obtained based on the
weighted linear combination method as expressed in Equation (4). Afterward, physical
vulnerability indices values were multiplied with socioeconomic vulnerability in the
raster calculator. As a result, vulnerability without coping capacity map was obtained.
Finally, the vulnerability with an integrated map was obtained in the same way as dis‐
cussed. Numbers of vulnerability calculation are present for the liability mapping of
several risks. An up‐to‐date and utter equation can allow a constructive vulnerability
judgment. In this connection, Equation (1) is chosen in this study, for flood vulnerability
assessment, following the review of existing literature [1,69]. Figure 2 shows the stepwise
frame of the study.
𝑆𝐸𝑉
𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑃𝑉 (1)
𝐶𝐶
In the above Equation (1), (PV) represents physical vulnerability, whereas (SEV)
presents a socioeconomic vulnerability and (CC) indicates coping capacity.
Figure 2. Stepwise framework of Methodology.
2.2. Data Description and Their Sources

Different types of data set from varied genesis were collected for constructing spatial
criterion layers employing geospatial course of action, for instance, population census,
agriculture, health, education, rainfall data sets, and satellite imageries. Population cen‐
sus data was gathered from the website of the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS), as
mentioned in Table 1.
Table 1. Data type and sources used in the current study.

S.No Data Type Source and Type Period Mapping Output
https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ accessed on 15 October 2019
1 Sentinel 2 2019 Land use and cover
USGS (10 m)
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs‐eros‐archive‐sentinel‐
Slope, elevation, distance from
2 DEM (SRTM) 2 accessed on 17 October 2019 2019
active channel
USGS (30 m)
NASA
3 Rainfall https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data‐access‐viewer/ accessed on 10 No‐ 2019 Precipitation Map
vember 2019.
Population density, dependent
Pakistan Bureau of statistics
population, independent popu‐
4 Census http://www.pbs.gov.pk/ accessed on 19 August 2020 2017
lation, Types of houses, water
(Point and statistics)
sources, literacy rate
KP Bureau of statistics
Agricultural and Cultivated, uncultivated, irri‐
5 (www.kpbos.gov.pk) accessed on 25 August 2020 2017
forest data gated un irrigated areas
(Point and statistics)
Health and educa‐
6 Field visits 2020 Education and health facilities
tion complex
Digital Elevation Model (D.E.M.) of 30 m resolution was loaded from the website of
the United State Geological Survey (USGS) (Table 1) to performed slope analysis and eleva‐
tion extraction and other topographic factors. Precipitation data of ten years were obtained
from the online source of (NASA) (Table 1) used to analyze precipitation variability in the
study area. Land use and the land cover map were developed for which Sentinel‐2 image of
10 m resolution and downloaded from USGS, Earth Explorer (Table 1). The agriculture data
was obtained from the report of “Socioeconomic Indicators (2017)” KP Bureau of Statistics.
Two coping capacity parameters data were acquired through field visits in the study area.
Table 1 specifics description of the data and their sources for the current study.
2.3. Selection of the Criteria, Alternatives, and Their Processing

Most of the criterion and alternatives selections were based on previous literature
and, in a special context of data availability in the target locality. Those variables and al‐
ternatives were selected in the current study, which determines the flood vulnerability
directly or indirectly. The geospatial layers of every nominated factor and criterion were
created by mapping each decisive factor’s substitutes. A total of 21 thematic maps were
generated in this study under three vulnerability components. All spatial layers were
transmuted into 30 m resolution raster ones to put in the raster‐based weighted overlay
process. The transformation of the value was carried out to each raster cell to prepare all
criteria, respectively. The details of the criterion selection and their processing are nar‐
rated in the following modules.
2.3.1. Criteria for Physical Vulnerability Mapping

Natural/physical factors can incline and controlled the progression of the vulnera‐
bility of any geographical area. Physical vulnerability is related to a system’s character‐
istics and circumstances, which make the system susceptible to any hazard [70]. In this
study, physical vulnerability was examined without taking the consideration of social
and cultural settings. The main focus is the natural setting of the physical environment,
particularly the impacts of the flood on the built environment. These controlling factors
may include land use and land cover, slope, elevation, distance to the nimble channel,
rainfall potency, soil groups, drainage density, etc., but we considered only five param‐
eters (slope, elevation, precipitation, distance to the active channel, and land use/land
cover) for flood vulnerability assessment [1,29–31].
Spatial flood susceptibility evaluation is greatly influenced by elevation and slope
[1]. In water‐related studies, slope plays a significant role because it manages surface
water flow and has power over the surface runoff. The strength of water flow gives rise
to attrition of soil and vertical filtration [30,71]. The region comprising flat areas and
with moderate slope is further exposed to flood compared to the area having high alti‐
tude and sharp slope [71]. The elevation is one of the key elements that control floods in
a region. Plain areas may get flooded sooner as water flows from high elevated areas to
low lying areas [56,72]. The height and slope criterion of geospatial layers were shown in
Figure 3b and e, were created from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission digital eleva‐
tion model (SRTM DEM) [1,28,31,73,74].
Figure 3. Physical vulnerability criterion layers: (a) land use and cover, (b) elevation, (c) slope, (d)
distance to active channel, (e) precipitation.
In Pakistan, mostly floods occurred due to irregular patterns of rainfall. Most of the
literature indicates that rainfall has an unbroken connection with stream discharge. The
vast volume of rainfall in a short period can cause a flash flood in the mountainous re‐
gion [47,49]. The areas with maximum precipitation potency are more exposed to floods
as compare to low precipitation intensity [67]. A map of yearly rainfall was formed by
interpolating point data obtained from open access of a NASA source. Inverse Distance
Weighting (IDW) interpolation technique is an extensively used procedure for interpo‐
lating metrological data like rainfall and temperature [71,75]. A precipitation map was
made in ArcMap (v10.2.2) for the target locality, as shown in Figure 3d.
Land use can illustrate the socioeconomic constrain in the surface cover of the
earth’s definite locality. The flood’s damage and special effects are immense for the de‐
fined type of land covers [1,68,71]. The study area was classified into build‐up, agricul‐
tural, forest, water bodies, snow cover, and rangeland classes from Sentinel‐2, as shown
in Figure 3a. The classification method known as supervised classification is one of the
most use by the different researchers in their studies. To find out the probable classes
and then, training sample data were chosen and utilized to perform a maximum likeli‐
hood algorithm in ERDAS IMAGINE [76]. 300 random points were taken from
high‐resolution Google Earth imageries to perform an accuracy assessment (2019) of the
study area. To obtain the reference points with at least 60 points for respectively cover
class, a stratified random sampling method was used. Tailed the methods described to
achieve an accurate assessment of classified imagery. The accuracy assessment result
shows that the image is classified with 90% [74,76–78].
Distance to the active channel is one of the most important aspects of flood vulnerable
areas. Most of the area is defenseless nearby to the active channel to floods as compared to
the area, away from the channel [1,16]. To assess, river channel data were obtained for cre‐
ating distance to active channel maps in the study area shown in Figure 3c [74].
2.3.2. Criteria for Coping Capacity Mapping

The reflection of coping capacity in the system ameliorates adaptation responses
and steers to preferable mitigating disaster consequences. Following the United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction [42] (p. 9), Coping capacity imply to the
blend of all the resources, potency, and impute accessible within a locality, society, or
association to deal with the unpleasant situation, emergencies or calamity by using ex‐
isting skills and resources to face and cope with negative impacts. According to UNDRR
2019, coping capacity is the ability of a system, individual, or community to respond to
the negative impacts of stress or perturbation that have the potentials to change the
structure or function of the system [40]. Different studies take different parameters for
the evaluation of coping capacity. For instance, Roy et al. [24] used three coping capacity
domain as (1) assets (household with radio, television, bicycle, mobile, and agriculture
land); (2) education (literacy rate, and school attendance rate); and (3) economic alterna‐
tives, (proportion of non‐agriculture worker and distance to town). While Houqe et al. [1]
used three parameters (literacy rate, distance to flood shelter, and distance to health
complexes) for calculating the coping capacity of Kalpara Upazila in Bangladesh. Three
coping capacity criteria, which are distance to Education facilities, distance to health
complex, and literacy rate were considered in the current investigation.
The existence of education and health facilities within the community are essential
criteria for determining the coping capacity of a specific locality because, in case of
emergency, the residents of the community can use the education building as a shelter
and their closeness to health facilities can reduce the mortal losses due to adequate
treatment within time so, these factors help in alleviating disaster effects [43,68,79]. In
this study, education and health complex data were gained from the concerned depart‐
ments of statistics. Spatial layers were formed employing the ʺEuclidean distanceʺ
method in the ArcMap platform [54,80], as shown in Figure 4b,c.
Figure 4. Coping capacity criterion layers: (a) literacy rate (b) distance to health facilities (c) dis‐
tance to education facilities.
Literature has revealed that literacy can develop knowledge, awareness, and flexibil‐
ity against flood tragedy and help folks make the proper decision and engage in helpful
mitigation processes recuperating from disaster outcomes [1,35]. Researches demonstrate
that a family unit with educated individuals exhibits maximum coping ability with disas‐
ter effects compared to the household with uneducated people [35,81]. The literacy rate
data of 10 years and above schooling were taken out from the 2017 population census, and
the spatial stratum was shaped in the ArcMap, as shown in Figure 4a.
2.3.3. Criteria for Socioeconomic Vulnerability Mapping

Various social and economic criteria influence socioeconomic vulnerability to
floods. Socioeconomic vulnerability is a utility of the community’s features that made
them susceptible to flood impacts and possible natural resource changes [18,82]. There is
also a necessity to examine and establish the proper selection of indicators for assess‐
ments using the frame to determine socioeconomic vulnerability [83]. Several studies
have shown that preferences should be based on the related literature’s cooperation facts
and a comprehensive perceptive of the local background that provides adequate local
relevance to adapt local adaptation measures [19,32]. Multiple criteria can persuade the
socioeconomic vulnerability to floods. Such criteria were chosen here for mapping.
Overall, in this study, 11 criteria are sorted out, including population density, dependent
population, independent population, water facilities, uncultivated and cultivated land,
irrigated and un‐irrigated land, Kacha houses (those dwelling units which is made‐up of
un‐brunt bricks, mud, and loosely packed stones), and Pacca houses (those dwelling
units which are designed to be solid and permanent and were made‐up of bricks, steel,
concrete, and are more resistant to flood).
Population density is one of the principal criteria for assessing social vulnerability,
particularly that people in the specific locality are physically and mentally exaggerated
by flood from different angles [1]. The overpopulated groups especially find it hard in
expulsion activities during and after the flood event [79]. A population density thematic
map was created using the population census data of 2017, as shown in Figure 5c. The
locality with densely inhabited is likely to be more exposed to floods than the area with
low population density. Water source and cleanness of place are a significant basis for
evaluating social vulnerability to floods, because floodwater causes damaged to the wa‐
ter supply scheme, which leads to meagre hygienic sanitation systems, and
health‐associated problems. In such circumstances, inadequate access to safe water and
water‐borne disease greatly suffer a large number of people [6,84]. The freshwater
sources were split into five categories and mapped as shown in Figure 6e.
Figure 5. Socioeconomic vulnerability criterion layers: (a) dependent population, (b) independent population, (c) popu‐
lation density, (d) Pacca household, (e) Kacha household.
Figure 6. Socioeconomic vulnerability criterion layers: (a) cultivated area, (b) uncultivated area, (c) un‐irrigated area, (d)
irrigated area, (e) freshwater facilities, (f) forest.
The female population is weaker than the male population [85]. For example, rela‐
tive populations, like children and aged people, are very susceptible to flood because of
their slight movement and troubles in emergency emptying activities [1]. For the current
study, the needy and self‐governing population’s spatial thematic layer was created us‐
ing the 2017 population census data as shown in Figure 5a.
Flood exposure is mostly affected by the housing quality in a given area. Such a
kind of house is a significant aspect of flood threat [8,35]. Houses are grouped into two
categories, Kacha (which is made up of stone and mud) and Pacca houses (which are
made up of bricks, steel, and concrete). Pacca houses are more resilient to flood as com‐
pared to Kacha houses. The population census of 2017 was used to prepare the spatial
layers of house type in this study Figure 5d,e.
Floods cause wide devastation to crops and caused more damages in terms of eco‐
nomic losses [47,55]. In this study, the agriculture‐dependent spatial layer was drawn up
by classifying into cultivated, uncultivated, irrigated, and un‐irrigated spatial layer by
inverse distance weighting interpolation (IDW) methods in the GIS environment using
point data gained from the KP bureau of statistics (Kp.bos) and district agriculture de‐
partment. Cultivatable and irrigated extents performances an essential role in the state
economy [51]. In the 2010 flood, the water spilled and scattered a substantial capacity
where it distributed on, containing cultivated land, irrigation channels, river beds, infra‐
structures, and houses [5]. Mainly, the un‐irrigated area is usually not affected by the
flood as compared to the irrigated area, but the un‐irrigated area speeds up the flow of
water because of a lack of proper ways for water flowing. Spatial layers were generated
and classified into five zones according to the percentage of area that is cultivated, un‐
cultivated, irrigated, and un‐irrigated as shown in Figure 6a–d).
2.3.4. Alternative Ranking, Standardization, and Classification of Criterion Layer

The most important use of AHP is to rank and prioritize the constraint. The prefer‐
ence scheme and the efficiency of existing sources which are the prerequisite judgement
from the decision‐maker. Moreover, the professionals generally exercise the pragmatic
understanding when they are concluding the decision in the available alternatives, crite‐
ria, and sub‐criteria. The ranking was carried out on the mapped surrogate each of the
spatial criterion strata, hereby providing the degree of vulnerability (1 to 5). From Ranks
1 to 5 shows very low to very high vulnerabilities, correspondingly [29]. Ranking of al‐
ternatives was carried out following the researcher’s contribution to vulnerability and
AHP exercise (Table 2).
Table 2. Alternate grading arrangement based on the input to a flood disaster.
Component Criteria Vulnerability Ranking

Very High (5) High (4) Moderate (3) Low (2) Very Low
Slope (degree) <8 9–22 23–34 35–62 >63
Elevation (meter) <1108 1109–1659 1660–2219 2220–3074 >3075
Physical vulnerabil‐ Distance from active
<2000 2000–3000 5000–6000 6000–7000 >10,000
ity channel (meter)
Snow cov‐
Cropland–Grassl
LULC. Settlement Bare land Forest er‐water bod‐
and
ies
Precipitation (mm) >171 141–170 94–140 57–93 <56
Population density(km2) >1100 860–1100 640–860 410–630 <400
Dependent population
>49 48–49 47–48 46–47 <46
(%)
Socioeconomic Independent population
>53 51–52 49–50 47–48 <46
vulnerability (%)
Cultivated area (km2) >2.2 1.9–2.1 1.5–1.8 1.3–1.4 <1.1
Uncultivated area (km2) <3.1 3.2–5.1 5.2–7.2 7.3–9.2 >9.3
Irrigated area (km2) >86 54–70 38–53 21–37 <20
Un irrigated area (km2) <20 21–37 38–53 54–70 >86
Kacha houses (%) >89 80–88 70–79 61–69 <60
Pacca houses (%) >90 80–88 70–79 61–69 <60
Fresh Water facilities (%) >39 25–31 18–24 9–17 <9
Literacy rate (%) <46 46–47 47–48 48–49 >49
Distance from education
Coping capacity >42 30–36 24–29 17–23 <10
facilities (km)
Distance form health
>8 6–8 4–6 2–4 <2
complex (km)
For standardization and classification, relatively two strategies were assumed to

convert all criteria into a common scale. Standardization of values on the scale of 0–1.
While classification was applied to make five stable values were endorsed to five clus‐
ters of the factor values. For the current study, the natural break was used to classify each
criterion value in simple classification methods in the ArcMap (v10.2.2) software. All
spatial layers were altered into 30 m pixel raster ones to apply the raster‐based weighted
overlay procedure, the values transformation was performed in each raster cell to pre‐
pare all criteria for the weighting linear combination that results [24]. The values trans‐
formation was executed on each raster cell to design all criteria for the weighting linear
combination. Thus, the values of reclassification were assigned to the range between 0
(not vulnerable to flood) and 1 (flood susceptible) for the first approach of standardiza‐
tion. Proportionally, giving rank to the alternative of the values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (for very
low, low, moderate, high, and very high susceptibility) are attributed when performing
the classification approach to provide vulnerability levels. Thus, the criterion standardi‐
zation procedure is made through the Raster Calculator while the classification into five
classes was performed via ERDAS 6.3.0 using the K‐means algorithm, and then their re‐
classification in 1–5 was performed in Arc Map [86,87].
2.3.5. Weighting the Criteria Using AHP

AHP is a tool of multi‐criteria approach for assessing disaster vulnerabilities, site
selection, allocation of resources, etc., which transforms the subjective evaluation into
quantitative information with the help of assigning scores of various criteria and
sub‐criteria. This approach leads the qualitative methodology which relies on specialist
views. The proposed research has taken the judgment of experts from the field of hy‐
drology and disaster management. The experts have been selected based on basic
knowledge and research experience. While doing the weight allocating process the
whole procedure is divided into five steps: pairwise comparison of criteria with expert
opinion, aggregation of the expert opinion, forming the preference matrix as shown in
Supplementary Materials (Tables S1–S3), finding a normalized matrix as shown in Sup‐
plementary Materials (Tables S4–S6), and the calculation of the consistency ratio. All the
steps are discussed below.
Initially, we prepared three comparison matrixes for physical, socioeconomic vul‐
nerabilities, and coping capacity. The qualitative judgment from the experts’ opinions
was received based on the Saaty nine‐point scale of relative importance [88] (Table 3).
According to Saaty fundamental scale (Table 3), the pairwise comparison is practiced to
find out each criterion weight [30]. In this regard, we considered some facts from the lit‐
erature [1,29,67,68,84] and interrogate the experts independently to discuss the signifi‐
cance of one criterion over another. Four experts were interrogated using the independ‐
ent judgment method [89]. A questionnaire to each expert was handed over, and the
geometric mean was taken to give each criterion the final values as shown in Supple‐
mentary Materials (Tables S1–S3). Ultimately, the preference matrix is generated ac‐
cording to Table 3 with the literature and expert opinion. The scale values are used from
equal importance to extreme importance having a numerical value from 1 to 9. The fun‐
damental of the pairwise correlation matrix was to deliver the best option to the weight
set. Weight value means the significances, which are absolute numbers somewhere in the
range of zero and one. Utilizing a weighted straight combine, it derives that the entirety of
the weight to the total sum of one [1,29]; therefore, the total score for three components of
vulnerability was kept as one. An inventory of the flood contributing elements or factors
development indicating the few factors, their particular weight, and how they are re‐
viewed by their impact on flooding causes in the study area. Greater weight estimation of
the criteria shows more need or impact than others inside the study [54,67].
Table 3. Showing the intensity and scale of importance [88].
Intensity of Importance Definition Explanation

Two elements provide a similar in‐
1 Equal importance
fluence to the objective
Knowledge and decision somewhat
3 moderate importance
favor one factor over another
Knowledge and decision strongly favor
5 Strong importance
one factor over another
One factor is preferred very strong‐
ly and is measured greater than an‐
7 Very strong importance
other; its dominance is demon‐
strated in practice
Capability and finding toughly help
9 Extreme importance
one factor over another
2, 4, 6, 8 The same importance When compromised is needed
Measuring the Consistency

By doing so the AHP process, the expert’s and users’ assessment are based on indi‐
vidual judgment so, they are not excepted from personal preferences and subjectivity,
raising the likelihood of generating unreliability in concluding them [55,89]. For that
type of indecision, the researcher performs the consistency check to evaluate whether
the comparative judgment is reasonably consistent or to repeat the practice before fur‐
ther processing [88].
In this study, the consistency ratio (CR) was figured out for checking the dependa‐
bility of comparisons in the pairwise correlation grid. CR is measured if the value is
equivalent to or small to affable level (10%) than the consistency ratio (CR) and the con‐
sistency index (CI) [90]. The CR is defined as the ratio between CI and RI. Consistency
ratio is given by Equation (2), where RI is the standard value as shown in Supplementary
Materials (Table S7) according to the number of criteria used in various research per‐
formance [88].
Equation (2) shows consistency ratio; where “CI” is the consistency index and “RI”
is the random index.
𝐶𝑅 (2)
CI is expressed as
𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑛
𝐶𝐼 (3)
𝑛 1
where λmax (Tables S8–S10) in the supplementary materials implies, the product between
column‐wise sum in pairwise comparison matrix and the average weight from the nor‐
malized matrix and prime value of the matrix and the matrix’s order is indicated by n.
The resulting CR value is 0.05, 0.09, and 0.02, respectively, as shown in (Table 3) which
is satisfactory because the toleration limit for the observed incontinency is at 0.1 [89].
2.3.6. Linear Weighted Combination Method

The most significant and common method employed in flood vulnerability map‐
ping is the weighted linear combination method. It uses a linear superposition approach
based on the importance of different factors’ weight. Linear combination converts mul‐
ti‐factor evaluation into a comprehensive one [91]. The following Equation (4) was used
for the weighted linear combination.
VI =∑ 𝑓 𝑥 (4)
where VI is the vulnerability index, n is the total number of factors, fi represents the
weight of factors i, while xi describes the contribution index of different factors i. To fol‐
low the WLC approach for producing flood vulnerability mapping of three steps that
can be performed comprises data processing, weighting, and mapping [92]. Different
criteria were re‐classified while using ranking and then finally using a weight liner com‐
bination model to produce physical, socioeconomic vulnerability, and coping capacity
maps of the study area.
2.4. Vulnerability Evaluation

In vulnerability study, several criteria are of much importance than others, for the
purpose being numerical weighting score is allocated to every criterion layers according
to its relative significance by using the layer principle. For the vulnerability evaluation in
the present study, the authors independently practiced the weighted overlay technique
with three components decisive factor layers by including their associated criterion
weights. Thus, the indexes of three components of physical, socioeconomic vulnerabili‐
ties, and coping capacity were got. After this, to create the maps of these three compo‐
nents, the exact index value was divided into five classes, i.e., very low, low, moderate,
high, and very high. Then, multiply the physical vulnerability indices to socioeconomic
vulnerability indices without integrating the coping capacity. Later on, to achieve the
Equation (1) values, the vulnerability included coping capacity index was produced by
accumulating physical vulnerability with socioeconomic vulnerability and then dividing
by the coping capacity in the ArcMap (v.10.2.2) to obtain the final vulnerability product.
Consequently, the weighted linear combination model was used to produce the
physical, socioeconomic vulnerabilities, coping capacity map, and an integrated map of
the study area. The natural break statistical scheme was adopted to categorize the flood
vulnerability map. The particular method is more reliable and competent to give out the
spatial pattern of flood vulnerability in the location‐specifically [1,71].
3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physical Vulnerability Mapping
In this study, physical vulnerability was examined without taking the consideration of
social and cultural settings. The main focus is the natural setting of the physical environ‐
ment, particularly the impacts of the flood on the built environment. In this study, we take
five criteria, which are land use/landcover, elevation, slope, distance from the active chan‐
nel, and precipitation as discussed in (Section 2.3.1) while following the literature of [1,29].
On the other hand, Feloni et al. [87] used nine parameters, while Matej et.al [30] used
seven parameters for flood susceptibility mapping of Slovakia. While Kashif et al. [71]
used seven parameters to determine the flood susceptibility at Panjkora river basin. As a
result, it should be stated that no exact agreement exists on which parameters should be
applied for physical vulnerability analysis. However, Matej et al. [30] recommend six
parameters in order to not generate unrepresentative weights dominated by a single
weight which may raise the possibility of over‐rating some of flood contributing param‐
eters. The number of parameters should be adjusted with respect to local built environ‐
ment conditions since the urban area may require other parameters than rural areas [30].
In this study, all the selected indicators were divided into sub‐indicator and ranked as 1
to 5, where 1 represents very low vulnerability and 5 represents a very high vulnerability
to flooding. The detailed statistics and ranking are shown in (Table 2). Weighted linear
combination method (Equation (4)) in ArcMap (v10.2.2) spatial analysis was followed to
integrate all the AHP weights of physical vulnerability (Table 4) to create a 30 m pixel by
pixel physical vulnerability database. The output database’s physical vulnerability index
values range from 0 to 1, where zero refers to very low vulnerability and one refers to
very high vulnerability. The data was reclassified to five categories through manual
classification method [56] such as; (1) very low (0.05–0.08), low (0.08–0.12), moderate
(0.12–0.30), high (0.30–0.60), very high (0.60–1) vulnerability respectively. Very low vul‐
nerability reflects that the area with a high elevation and faraway from active channel
then has no chances of flood occurrence. However, the impacts will not be ignored be‐
cause most of the population live in high elevated mountains and entirely dependent on
the plain areas using as a source of their daily life activities. While very high vulnerability
category shows more chances of flood occurrence as well as a high impact in a specific
area. After that, a spatial analysis operation was done; as a result, different vulnerability
level maps were obtained. The particular map (Figure 7) shows that roughly 59% of the
research was stratified into a very low to moderate vulnerability level which covers an
area of 1106 km2, while high and very high vulnerable areas secured 41% (490 km2) of
the total area (Table 5). The central‐southern and eastern areas are severely susceptible
to flood impacts since they are close to the waterways Figure 3c displays low‐water
marks and delicate slants Figure 3e. By comparison, due to lofty altitude Figure 3b, in a
vertiginous slope, and faraway from the active river channel, northern and
north‐western regions from the central parts are at a less vulnerable level. The results
indicate that the area closeness to the bank of the river and gentle slope are important
parameters of physical–environmental vulnerability. The finding of this study reveals
that the area closeness to active channel is highly exposed to flood impacts. The results
agree with the previous studies [1,8,24,45,51], which shows that areas near to river,
streams, situated on a slight slope and receive maximum rainfall will be highly vulnera‐
ble to flood impacts.
Figure 7. Physical vulnerability map displaying spatial pattern and levels of physical vulnerability
to floods.
Table 4. Weighting the criteria using analytical hierarchy process (AHP).
Components of Vulnerability Criteria Weight Priority %

Elevation 0.29 29%
Slope 0.07 7%
LULC 0.08 8%
Physical vulnerability Precipitation 0.19 19%
Distance from the active channel 0.41 41%
CR 0.05
Un‐cultivated area 0.049 4.90%
cultivated area 0.051 5.10%
Forest 0.031 3.20%
population density 0.18 18%
Socioeconomic vulnerability Dependent population 0.128 12.80%
Independent population 0.142 14.20%
Irrigated area 0.081 8.10%
Un‐irrigated area 0.056 5.60%
Kacha houses 0.95 9.50%
Water facilities 0.045 4.50%
Pacca houses 0.12 12%

CR 0.09
Literacy rate 0.07 7.30%
Coping capacity Distance from education facilities 0.58 58%
Distance from health complex 0.34 34.95%
CR 0.02
Table 5. The physical vulnerability of the study area after reclassification.
Vulnerability Level Area in sq.km Area % Direction

Very low 207.76 13.02 Northern
Low 440.07 27.60 Northern‐western
Moderate 457.63 28.71 Central
High 326.11 20.46 Central‐southern
Very high 162.95 10.22 Southern‐eastern
3.2. Coping Capacity Mapping

Coping capacity is the ability of a system, individual, or community to respond to
the negative impacts of stress or perturbation that have the potentials to change the
structure or function of the system [40]. Coping capacity refers to the blend of all re‐
sources, skills, and knowledge within a locality to deal with an unpleasant situation us‐
ing existing sources and abilities to cope with adverse impacts. Different studies take
different parameters for the evaluation of coping capacity. For instance, Roy et al. [24]
used three coping capacity domain as (1) assets (household with radio, television, bicycle,
mobile, and agriculture land); (2) education (literacy rate, school attendance rate); and (3)
economic alternatives, (proportion of non‐agriculture worker and distance to town).
While Houqe et al. [1] used three parameters (literacy rate, distance to flood shelter, and
distance to health complexes) for calculating the coping capacity of Kalpara Upazila in
Bangladesh. In this study, we used three criteria: distance to education buildings, dis‐
tance to health complexes, and literacy rate. All the selected criteria were divided into
sub‐criteria and ranked from 1 to 5 and further process same as discussed before (Section
2.3.2). The coping capacity map was produced by classifying them into five levels based
on developed index values. Table 6 presents that high to highly resilience levels spread
up to 20% of the research area mostly spread from southern to the northern direction,
which mostly covers an area of 305.41 km2. The coping capacity of the central area is
higher as compared to the northern and southern parts of the study area because of the
numerous flood shelters, and health complexes. By contrarily, from low to very low
coping capacity tract cover 46% (725 km2) of the targeted study area comparing to the
central area of the study. The inhabitants’ in the particular areas have good access to
health and educated buildings, and better approaches to freshwater facilities. The edu‐
cation and health complexes act like shelter to flood during flood disaster phenomena.
Educated and aware society can successfully adapt towards flood vulnerability because
these individuals know the measures, which they need to take during flooding after
flood. While the remaining area of 563.69 km2 falls into moderate vulnerable hazard lev‐
el as shown in Figure 8. The finding of this study discloses that those areas which have
more education facilities and have easy access to these facilities will be more resilient. In
emergencies, the affected people always try to find shelter to save their lives and assets.
Therefore, the education buildings are one of the primary sources that one can use as
shelter. Our results confirms similar findings carried out by Shah et al. [8] and Hoque et
al. [1]. Which implies that community immediate access to a safe place will reduce the
disaster effects and the number of education facilities will increase the capacity of a
community. The community closeness to health facilities could reduce the mortal losses
due to an inadequate treatment within time. This indicating that the closeness of com‐
munity to health facilities can reduce the disaster effects and increases their resilience
toward flood hazards.
Table 6. Coping capacity of the study area after reclassification.
Coping Capacity Area in km2 Area% Direction

Very low 12.01 0.76 Central
Cen‐
Low 713.40 44.75
tral‐western‐eastern
Moderate 563.69 35.36 Central‐western
High 301.07 18.89 Southern‐northern
Very high 4.34 0.28 Southern
Figure 8. Coping capacity map displaying spatial pattern and level of coping capacity against floods.
3.3. Socioeconomic Vulnerability Mapping

Socioeconomic vulnerability is the social, economic, and demographic aspects of
community features that made them vulnerable to flood impacts and possible natural
resource changes [18,93]. This study has taken 11 criteria: population density, dependent
and independent population, Kacha and Pacca houses, housing with water facilities,
cultivated and uncultivated land, irrigated and un‐irrigated area as discussed in Section
2.3.3. All the indicators were divided into sub‐indicator and further process as discussed
above in Section 3.1. The resulting map (Figure 9) shows that those communities living
in the northern‐western regions of the targeted area for the study are in high and very
high vulnerable tracts, which covers an area of 395.98 km2 (Table 7). The high and very
high socially and economically susceptible territories cover 24.85% of the overall area,
separately. The socioeconomic vulnerability of these susceptible zones is because of a

significant level of agricultural dependence Figure 6a–d, population density Figure 5c,
Kacha housing units Figure 5e, and lack of freshwater sources availability Figure 6e. On
the other side, the low and very low socially weak territories cover 216.64 km2 and
381.70 km2 (Table 7) respectively. These territories include the central‐eastern as well as
middle parts of the targeted study area. These areas have a better socioeconomic condi‐
tion as compared to the other regions because of safe drinking water facilities, Pacca
type of dwelling units, and the socioeconomic situation of the communities is better. The
results indicated that agriculture dependency, population density, housing type of the
specified area, and freshwater facilities are important parameters to determine the soci‐
oeconomic vulnerability of an area. Society or community with good socioeconomic
conditions and easy and safe access to resources will have less chance of being impacted
by hazards [22]. While a very high vulnerability category shows that communities with
fragile infrastructure and inadequate access to basic services (health, drinking water,
education, etc.) and insufficient livelihood, these elements increase the flood vulnerabil‐
ity in the study area. People are always trying to find their livelihood in a location where
opportunity and hazard exist parallel [51]. Low‐income people in rural areas tend to live
in hazard‐prone areas because they do not have the resources to live elsewhere [65]. In
the rural districts, mostly the population is dependent directly or indirectly on agricul‐
ture to earn their livelihood in a location that combines opportunity and hazard [25]. The
results agree with the previous studies [1,8,30,65], which claims that flood disaster di‐
rectly impacts agricultural lands, housing types of a specific area, and congested locality.
Figure 9. Socioeconomic vulnerability map displaying spatial pattern and the level of socioeco‐
nomic vulnerability to floods.
Table 7. The socioeconomic vulnerability of the study area after reclassification.
Vulnerability Level Area in km2 Area % Direction

Very low 216.64 13.60 Central‐eastern
Low 381.70 23.95 Central
Moderate 599.76 37.63 Western‐southern
High 246.80 15.49 Northern‐western
Very high 149.18 9.36 Northern‐western
3.4. Vulnerability without Incorporated Coping Capacity

The indices’ values of physical and social vulnerability were multiplied without in‐
tegrating coping capacity to produce a flood vulnerability map of the target locality
while classifying them into five vulnerable classes as shown in Figure 10. About 25% of
the area covered about 397 km2 comprising from high to the very high vulnerable level
regions (Table 8). These regions spread from the western‐middle to the northern part of
the study regions due to the active channel’s proximity, gentle slope, low elevation,
population dependency, high precipitation, and population density.
Figure 10. Vulnerability map without integrated coping capacity displaying spatial level and the
degree to vulnerability to floods.
Table 8. Vulnerability of the study area; without integrated coping capacity after reclassification.
Vulnerability Level Area in km2 Area % Direction

Very low 447.45 28.06 Eastern‐central
Low 351.27 22.03 Central
Moderate 399.44 25.05 Central
High 192.28 12.06 Western‐central
Very high 204.49 12.83 Northern
Total 1594.48 100
While from eastern to central regions within the study area, about 50% (799 km2) of
the research area lays from very low to low vulnerable classes due to adequate drinking
water facilities, well‐structured housing units, minimum precipitation intensity, low
population density, and safe agriculture lands. The remaining area 399.44 km2 comprises
the moderate vulnerable area which covers 25.05%. Most of these areas are in the middle
part of the region in which dwelling units exist on a gentle slope, moderate elevation,
and far away from rivers and streams. The results indicated that proximity to the active
channel, gentle slope, agriculture and population dependency, population density are
the main influencing factors that increase the vulnerability due to impacts of flood in
District Shangla. The effectual mitigation strategies (awareness campaign about the oc‐
curring phenomenon, safe location for the construction) will reduce the sensitivity of the
area to flood impacts. Slope and elevation are two important topographic factors that in‐
fluence the flood generation mechanism [50,71].
3.5. Vulnerability with Integrated Coping Capacity

In flood vulnerability assessment, the integration of coping capacity is an important
step towards actual vulnerability information. By incorporating coping capacity, physi‐
cal and socioeconomic vulnerability indices were multiplied, divided by the coping ca‐
pacity to generate a flood vulnerability map of the location‐specific. After that, we cate‐
gorized them into five vulnerable classes, as shown in Figure 11. The results demon‐
strated that 7% of the locality comprising from high to the very high vulnerable regions
and these classes spread from the west to the southern part of the location specifics and
covers about 103 km2 (Table 9). The generated output map is different from the map of
vulnerability without coping capacity. The direction of vulnerable regions as well as the
area under high to very high also changed from western‐central and northern to west‐
ern‐southern in the top portion of the subject locality. The area under high to very high
vulnerability was changed from 397 km2 to 103 km2. The change in results indicated that
the middle and lower portion of the subject locality’s is more vulnerable to floods be‐
cause of low elevation, gentle slope, the communities are near to active channel of river
and streams, exposure of agricultural lands to floods, and most of the communities are
far away from health facilities. By contrast, very low to moderately vulnerable classes
cover about 1490 km2 from central‐northern towards southern‐eastern. Comparing the
integrated coping capacity with, with‐out integrated coping capacity, the very low to
moderate vulnerable region changed its direction from eastern‐central to cen‐
tral‐northern and southern directions. This changed in the direction occurred because of
a reasonable literacy rate, and the communities have good socioeconomic conditions.
Table 9 demonstrated that 93.57% (1492 km2) of the research area lying in very low to
moderately vulnerable zones while the rest of the area 7% (103km2) enclosed high to
very high vulnerable regions. The findings of the final vulnerability outcome are in
agreement with Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) monsoon contin‐
gency report 2014 [48] and Nazeer et al. [35] where they demarcated those hotspot re‐
gions as we showed in Figure 11.
Table 9. Vulnerability with an integrated coping capacity of the study area after reclassification.
Vulnerability Level Area in km2 Area % Directions

Very low 787.29 49.37 Central‐northern
Low 542.52 34.02 Central‐southern
Moderate 162.34 10.18 Southern‐eastern
High 98.04 6.15 Western‐southern
Very high 4.54 0.29 Western
Total 1594.48 100
Figure 11. Integrated vulnerability map displaying spatial pattern and the degree of vulnerability
to floods.
3.6. Validation of Vulnerability Evaluation

There is no well‐defined method that could validate the flood vulnerability mapping
procedure. However, qualitative validation approaches were adopted by many re‐
searchers through field visits [1,24]. In our proposed study the subjective validation
method was adopted in which a field visit was conducted in a different region in the
study area where flood frequently occurs. For this purpose, personal discussion and ob‐
servation with officials, specialists, and local people and their opinion and suggestion
were viewed to measure and access our software’s validity produced vulnerability maps
and assessment results. We deeply observed those locations where the past flood oc‐
curred frequently and asked the local people about the severity and impact of floods.
Afterward, we interviewed three types of respondents from the field consisting of spe‐
cialists (who work on floods in the area), local people, and officials (concerned offices). A
total of 29 out of 50 respondents were highly satisfied with our proposed results which
are about 58%. While 12 (24%) respondents were satisfied, and the remaining 9 (18%) of
the respondents were not well pleased with the result obtained from flood vulnerability
as showed in (Table 10). Furthermore, the vulnerability map with integrated coping ca‐
pacity demonstrated that the western‐southern portion of the subject locality was high
to very high exposed regions, which were similar to the results obtained from the field
in‐depth observation. The field visit result also indicates that from very low to moder‐
ately vulnerable classes in the region is not that much affected by the past flood of 2010
and 2014.
Table 10. Validation of vulnerability assessment from the field.
Type of Re‐ Total Number of Respondents Comments

spondents Respondents Highly Assured Assured Not Assured
Specialists 3 2 0 1
Officials 2 1 1 0
Local people 45 26 11 8
Total 50 (100%) 29 (58%) 12 (24%) 9 (18%)
4. Conclusions and Policy Implications

Climate‐induced disasters, particularly floods in Pakistan, have caused noticeable
destruction to Pakistan’s economy both in terms of physical and human. The findings of
this study will be helpful in the perspective of rural districts communities as the current
developmental plans do not provide any details on local disaster risk reduction and as‐
sessment. In point of fact, the existence of district disaster management units in rural
communities is non‐existent and very nominal. Flood risk management in Pakistan re‐
quires to be proactive in contrast to the current reactive nature. In this regard, this re‐
search effort will be helpful for disaster management organizations and institutions in
Pakistan for developing future disaster risk reduction strategies, particularly in rural
flood‐prone districts. The current study proposed a GIS‐based multi‐criteria approach
for flood vulnerability portraying and analysis in the local administrative area of District
Shangla, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan using a different type of geospatial data sets,
census data as well as field data. To generate the thematic layers of selected metrics, in
the state of three vulnerability constituents (physical, socioeconomic vulnerabilities, and
coping capacity), geospatial techniques were used in the ArcMap settings to map the de‐
sired criteria. One of the best‐known methods of MCDA known as AHP was imple‐
mented in the ArcMap (v10.2.2) setting to merge multi‐criteria in the dimensional deci‐
sion‐making tactics. A subjective validation procedure was acquired, and the resulted
vulnerability maps were validated through field visits, comprehensive introspection,
and dialogue with local folks, related officials, and experts in the target locality. The
proposed framework provides a proficient means to access the flood vulnerability at a
local scale.
Inclusive flood vulnerability evaluation needs in‐depth information on field condi‐
tion, hydrologic statistics, detailed socioeconomic statistics, and features of flood protec‐
tion structure so that GIS integrated multi‐criteria mapping and assessment results
could point out the impact of the flood on the definite area. For accurate and precise
vulnerability mapping geospatial techniques need efficiency. Though, in poor countries,
data collection for spatial decision‐making techniques is very difficult and challenging.
Our framework demonstrates the effectiveness of initiating comprehensive and precise
vulnerability statistics by way of GIS‐based multi‐criteria assessment at the district level.
The AHP has been very convenient for allocating weight to the particular criteria and
alternatives. The results demonstrated that the high and very high vulnerability covers
an area of 192.28km2 (12.06%) and 204.49 km2 (12.83%) from the western‐central and
northern directions of the study area, respectively. Furthermore, mapping real vulnera‐
ble information needs the incorporation of the coping capacity of the area in the vulner‐
ability evaluation practices. While by incorporating the coping capacity the results com‐
pletely change and show that high and very high vulnerable covers 98.04 km2 (6.15%)
and 4.54 km2 (0.29%) from western‐southern to western direction, respectively. Moreo‐
ver, the justification of the results from the field improved the validity of this approach.
The output of this study could be an outline for a preservationist, spatial data analysts,
natural disaster and emergency managers, and disaster risk insurers for the selection of
suitable datasets and processing techniques for producing flood disaster management
information and helpful in flood mitigation tactics.
The results of this study are going along with some disadvantages. The selection of
several criteria is required to process and map productive vulnerability evaluation. The
used method operated in this research of vulnerability could be improved considerably
following the inclusion of a variety of variables like hydrological soil groups, the geolo‐
gy of the area, poverty score, income level, family structure, construction materials in
buildings, institutional capacity, etc. In addition, SRTM DEM of 30 m spatial resolution
was used to generate the topographic maps. High spatial resolution landscape data of
emerging technology such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and DEM of 10m
resolution could give better results. Moreover, in the proposed research, it was laborious
to observe the convenient resource person for both the weighting exercise using AHP, as
well as for the validations. Our study results were verified through subjective judgment
based on factors analysis while quantitative judgment is a more inclusive approach that
results in better accuracy. Future research can deal with the stated disadvantages.
Without being the disadvantages, the defined strategy is still considered helpful for
flood vulnerability mapping at the district level to support the district disaster manage‐
ment planner and other organizations to prepare disaster management plans for effec‐
tive flood mitigation.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at

www.mdpi.com/2071‐1050/13/6/3126/s1, Figure S1: Stream network, roads and water bodies of
District Shangla, Figure S2: diagram which show the flood hazard generation mechanism in the
study area Table S1: Pairwise comparison matrix of physical vulnerability (preference matrix), Ta‐
ble S2: Pairwise comparison matrix of socioeconomic vulnerability (preference matrix),
Table S3: Comparison matrix of coping capacity (Preference matrix), Table S4: Normalized matrix
of physical vulnerability, Table S5: Normalized matrix of socioeconomic vulnerability, Table S6:
Normalized matrix of coping capacity, Table S7: Consistency indices for a randomly generated
matrix, Table S8: Calculation of Consistency Index (CI) of Physical vulnerability, Table S9: Calcu‐
lation of Consistency Index (CI) of socioeconomic vulnerability, Table S10: Calculation of Con‐
sistency Index (CI) of Coping Capacity.
Author Contributions: All authors contributed significantly to the preparation of this manuscript.
Conceptualization, M.H. and J.Z.; methodology, M.H., M.T. and J.Z.; software, M.H. and M.T.;
validation, M.H., A.A.S. and K.U.; formal analysis, M.H., M.T. and K.U.; investigation, M.H. and
M.T.; resources, J.Z. and M.H.; data curation, M.H., M.T. and B.A.‐S.; writing—original draft,
M.H.; writing—review and editing, J.Z., A.A.S., K.U. and U.M.; visualization, M.H., M.T. and J.Z.;
supervision, J.Z. and M.H.; project administration, J.Z., M.H. and M.T.; funding acquisition, J.Z.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research is supported by the national key research and development program of
China (2018YFC1508804); The Key Scientific and Technology Research and Development Program
of Jilin Province (20180201033SF).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The supporting used in this article can be accessed from these
sources. The remote sensing data used in the article can be found on the websites
(https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov),
(https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs‐eros‐archive‐sentinel‐2), The rainfall data can be
found on the website of (https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data‐access‐viewer/), The Census data can be
found in (http://www.pbs.gov.pk) on request, The other socioeconomic related data can found on
(www.kpbos.gov.pk) and other data can be found in supplementary materials.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank District Health, Education and Agriculture depart‐
ments, Shangla for providing us the relevant data and United States Geological survey (USGS) for
Sentinel 2 and ASTER DEM images.
Conflicts of Interest: All the authors declare to have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Hoque, M.A.A.; Tasfia, S.; Ahmed, N.; Pradhan, B. Assessing Spatial Flood Vulnerability at Kalapara Upazila in Bangladesh
Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process. Sensors 2019, 19, 1302, doi:10.3390/s19061302.
2. Wilhelm, B.; Ballesteros‐Canovas, J.A.; Macdonald, N.; Wilhelm, B.; Toonen, W.H.J.; Baker, V.; Barriendos, M.; Brauer, A.;
Corella, J.P.; Denniston, R.; et al. Interpreting Historical , Botanical, and Geological Evidence to Aid Preparations for Future
Floods. WIREs Water WILEY 2018, 1–22, doi:10.1002/wat2.1318.
3. Wahlstrom, M.; Guha‐Sapir, D. The Human Cost of Weather‐Related Disasters 1995–2015; Center for Research on the Epidemiol‐
ogy of Disasters Cred: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
4. Busico, G.; Giuditta, E.; Kazakis, N. A Hybrid GIS and AHP Approach for Modelling Actual and Future Forest Fire Risk Un‐
der Climate Change. Sustainability 2019, 11, 166, doi:10.3390/su11247166.
5. Atta‐ur‐Rahman; Khan, A.N. Analysis of 2010‐Flood Causes, Nature and Magnitude in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Nat. Hazards 2013, 66, 887–904, doi:10.1007/s11069‐012‐0528‐3.
6. Aldous, A.; Fitzsimons, J.; Richter, B.; Bach, L. Droughts, Floods and Freshwater Ecosystems: Evaluating Climate Change Im‐
pacts and Developing Adaptation Strategies. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2011, 62, 223–231, doi:10.1071/MF09285.
7. Mahapatra, M.; Ramakrishnan, R.; Rajawat, A.S. Coastal Vulnerability Assessment Using Analytical Hierarchical Process for
South Gujarat Coast, India. Nat. Hazards 2015, 76, 139–159, doi:10.1007/s11069‐014‐1491‐y.
8. Shah, A.A.; Ye, J.; Abid, M.; Khan, J.; Amir, S.M. Flood Hazards: Household Vulnerability and Resilience in Disaster‐Prone
Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. Nat. Hazards 2018, 93, 147–165, doi:10.1007/s11069‐018‐3293‐0.
9. Shah, A.A.; Ye, J.; Shaw, R.; Ullah, R.; Ali, M. Factors Affecting Flood‐Induced Household Vulnerability and Health Risks in Paki‐
stan: The Case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Province. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 42, 101341, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101341.
10. Shah, A.A.; Ye, J.; Pan, L.; Ullah, R.; Shah, S.I.A.; Fahad, S.; Naz, S. Schools’ Flood Emergency Preparedness in Khyber Pakh‐
tunkhwa Province, Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2018, 9, 181–194, doi:10.1007/s13753‐018‐0175‐8.
11. Shah, A.A.; Ye, J.; Abid, M.; Ullah, R. Determinants of Flood Risk Mitigation Strategies at Household Level: A Case of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Province, Pakistan. Nat. Hazards 2017, 1, 415–430.
12. Bodoque, J.M.; Ballesteros‐Cánovas, J.A.; Stoffel, M. An Application‐Oriented Protocol for Flood Frequency Analysis Based on
Botanical Evidence. J. Hydrol. 2020, 590, 125242.
13. Ballesteros‐canovas, J.A.; Koul, T.; Bashir, A.; Maria, J. Recent Flood Hazards in Kashmir Put into Context with Millenni‐
um‐Long Historical and Tree‐Ring Records. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 722, 137875, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137875.
14. Ballesteros‐canovas, J.A.; Quesada‐román, A.; Granados‐bolaños, S. Dendrogeomorphic Reconstruction of Floods in a Dy‐
namic Tropical River. Geomorphology 2020, 359, 107133, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107133.
15. Allen, S.K.; Ballesteros‐Canovas, J.; Randhaw, S.S.; Singha, A.K.; Huggel, C.; Stoffel, M. Translating the concept of climate risk
into an assessment framework to inform adaptation Planning: Insights from a pilot study of flood risk in Himachal Pradesh,
Northern India. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 87, 1–10, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.05.013.
16. Rica, C.; Quesada‐román, A.; Villalobos‐chacón, A. Flash Flood Impacts of Hurricane Otto and Hydrometeorological Risk
Mapping Flash Flood Impacts of Hurricane Otto and Hydrometeorological Risk Mapping in Costa Rica. Geogr. Tidsskr. ‐Dan. J.
Geogr. 2020, doi:10.1080/00167223.2020.1822195.
17. Miranda, F.N.; Ferreira, T.M. A Simplified Approach for Flood Vulnerability Assessment of Historic Sites. Nat. Hazards 2019,
96, 713–730, doi:10.1007/s11069‐018‐03565‐1.
18. Jhan, H.; Ballinger, R.; Jaleel, A.; Ting, K. Development and Application of a Socioeconomic Vulnerability Indicator Frame‐
work ( SVIF ) for Local Climate Change Adaptation in Taiwan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1585, doi:10.3390/su12041585.
19. Birkmann, J. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards. In Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards; Alexander, D., Handmer,
J., McBean, G., Eds.; United Nation University Press: Tokyo, Japan, 2013; pp. 9–699, ISBN 9789280812022.
20. Bronkhorst, B. Van; Dani, S.; Forni, M.; Ghesquiere, F.; Kahandawa, S.; Kazi, S.; Khan, H.; Pokhrel, A.; Singh, D.; Tshering, D.;
et al. Disaster Risk Management in South Asia: A Regional Overview; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
21. Rana, I.A.; Routray, J.K. Multidimensional Model for Vulnerability Assessment of Urban Flooding: An Empirical Study in
Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2018, 9, 359–375, doi:10.1007/s13753‐018‐0179‐4.
22. Fernandez, P.; Mourato, S.; Moreira, M. Social Vulnerability Assessment of Flood Risk Using GIS‐Based Multicriteria Decision
Analysis. A Case Study of Vila Nova de Gaia. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2016, 7, 1367–1389, doi:10.1080/19475705.2015.1052021.
23. Etkin, D. Disaster Theory: Hazard, Vulnerability, and Resilience; Scott, S., LaFleur, M., Purushothaman, V., Eds.; Butter‐
worth‐Heinemann (Elsevier): Kidlington, UK; Oxford, UK, 2016; ISBN 9780128002278.
24. Roy, D.C.; Blaschke, T. Spatial Vulnerability Assessment of Floods in the Coastal Regions of Bangladesh. Geomat. Nat. Hazards
Risk 2015, 6, 21–44, doi:10.1080/19475705.2013.816785.
25. Jamshed, A.; Rana, I.A.; Birkmann, J.; Nadeem, O. Changes in Vulnerability and Response Capacities of Rural Communities After
Extreme Events: Case of Major Floods of 2010 and 2014 in Pakistan. J. Extrem. Events 2017, 04, 1750013,
doi:10.1142/s2345737617500130.
26. Andrade, M.M.N. de; Szlafsztein, C.F. Vulnerability Assessment Including Tangible and Intangible Components in the Index Com‐
position: An Amazon Case Study of Flooding and Flash Flooding. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630, 903–912,
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.271.
27. Lummen, N.S.; Yamada, F. Implementation of an Integrated Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Model. Nat. Hazards 2014, 73,
1085–1117, doi:10.1007/s11069‐014‐1123‐6.
28. Menoni, S.; Molinari, D.; Parker, D.; Ballio, F.; Tapsell, S. Assessing Multifaceted Vulnerability and Resilience in Order to De‐
sign Risk‐Mitigation Strategies. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 2057–2082, doi:10.1007/s11069‐012‐0134‐4.
29. Rimba, A.; Setiawati, M.; Sambah, A.; Miura, F. Physical Flood Vulnerability Mapping Applying Geospatial Techniques in
Okazaki City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 7, doi:10.3390/urbansci1010007.
30. Vojtek, M.; Vojteková, J. Flood Susceptibility Mapping on a National Scale in Slovakia Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process.
Water 2019, 11, 364, doi:10.3390/w11020364.
31. Shivaprasad Sharma, S.V.; Roy, P.S.; Chakravarthi, V.; Srinivasa Rao, G. Flood Risk Assessment Using Multi‐Criteria Analysis: A
Case Study from Kopili River Basin, Assam, India. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2018, 9, 79–93, doi:10.1080/19475705.2017.1408705.
32. Scheuer, S.; Haase, D.; Meyer, V. Exploring Multicriteria Flood Vulnerability by Integrating Economic, Social and Ecological
Dimensions of Flood Risk and Coping Capacity: From a Starting Point View towards an End Point View of Vulnerability. Nat.
Hazards 2011, 58, 731–751, doi:10.1007/s11069‐010‐9666‐7.
33. Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Tang, Z.; Zeng, G. A GIS‐Based Spatial Multi‐Criteria Approach for Flood Risk Assessment in the Dongting
Lake Region, Hunan, Central China. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 3465–3484, doi:10.1007/s11269‐011‐9866‐2.
34. Xiong, J.; Li, J.; Cheng, W.; Wang, N.; Guo, L. A GIS‐Based Support Vector Machine Model for Flash Flood Vulnerability As‐
sessment and Mapping in China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo‐Inf. 2019, 8, 297, doi:10.3390/ijgi8070297.
35. Nazeer, M.; Bork, H.R. Flood Vulnerability Assessment through Different Methodological Approaches in the Context of
North‐West Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6695, doi:10.3390/su11236695.
36. Chakraborty, A.; Joshi, P.K. Mapping Disaster Vulnerability in India Using Analytical Hierarchy Process. Geomat. Nat. Hazards
Risk 2016, 5705, 308–325, doi:10.1080/19475705.2014.897656.
37. Aroca‐Jimenez, E.; Bodoque, J.M.; Antonio Garcia, J.; Diez‐Herrero, A. Construction of an Integrated Social Vulnerability In‐
dex in Urban Areas Prone to Flash Flooding. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 17, 1541–1557, doi:10.5194/nhess‐17‐1541‐2017.
38. Fekete, A.; Damm, M.; Birkmann, J. Scales as a Challenge for Vulnerability Assessment. Nat. Hazards 2010, 55, 729–747,
doi:10.1007/s11069‐009‐9445‐5.
39. Zeleňáková, M.; Gaňová, L.; Purcz, P.; Satrapa, L. Methodology of Flood Risk Assessment from Flash Floods Based on Hazard
and Vulnerability of the River Basin. Nat. Hazards 2015, 79, 2055–2071, doi:10.1007/s11069‐015‐1945‐x.
40. UNDRR. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction; UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
41. Cutter, S.L.; Barnes, L.; Berry, M.; Burton, C.; Evans, E.; Tate, E.; Webb, J. A Place‐Based Model for Understanding Community
Resilience to Natural Disasters. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 598–606, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013.
42. UNISDR. UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction; UNISDR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
43. Radhakrishnan, M.; Nguyen, H.Q.; Gersonius, B.; Pathirana, A.; Vinh, K.Q.; Ashley, R.M.; Zevenbergen, C. Coping Capacities for
Improving Adaptation Pathways for Flood Protection in Can Tho, Vietnam. Clim. Chang. 2018, 149, 29–41,
doi:10.1007/s10584‐017‐1999‐8.
44. Rana, I.A.; Routray, J.K. Integrated Methodology for Flood Risk Assessment and Application in Urban Communities of Paki‐
stan. Nat. Hazards 2018, 91, 239–266, doi:10.1007/s11069‐017‐3124‐8.
45. GOP. Government of Pakistan Ministry of Water Resources: Annual Flood Report 2017; GOP: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2017.
46. Ullah, F.; Saqib, S.E.; Ahmad, M.; Ali, M. Flood Risk Perception and Its Determinants among Rural Households in Two
Communities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Nat. Hazards 2020, doi:10.1007/s11069‐020‐04166‐7.
47. Atta‐ur‐Rahman; Khan, A.N. Analysis of Flood Causes and Associated Socio‐Economic Damages in the Hindukush Region.
Nat. Hazards 2011, 59, 1239–1260, doi:10.1007/s11069‐011‐9830‐8.
48. PDMA. Monsoon contingency plan, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: Peshawar, Pakistan, 2014. Available online:
https://www.pdma.gov.pk (assessed on 23 October 2020).
49. Gaurav, K.; Sinha, R.; Panda, P.K. The Indus Flood of 2010 in Pakistan: A Perspective Analysis Using Remote Sensing Data.
Nat. Hazards 2011, 59, 1815–1826, doi:10.1007/s11069‐011‐9869‐6.
50. Moazzam, M.F.U.; Vansarochana, A.; Rahman, A.U. Analysis of Flood Susceptibility and Zonation for Risk Management Using
Frequency Ratio Model in District Charsadda, Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Geoinform. 2018, 5, 140–153, doi:10.30897/ijegeo.407260.
51. Jamshed, A.; Rana, I.A.; Mirza, U.M.; Birkmann, J. Assessing Relationship between Vulnerability and Capacity: An Empirical
Study on Rural Flooding in Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 36, 101109, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101109.
52. Malczewski, J. GIS‐Based Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Survey of the Literature. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2006, 20, 703–726,
doi:10.1080/13658810600661508.
53. García‐soriano, D.; Quesada‐román, A.; Zamorano‐orozco, J.J. Geomorphological Hazards Susceptibility in High‐Density Ur‐
ban Areas : A Case Study of Mexico City. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2020, 102, 102667, doi:10.1016/j.jsames.2020.102667.
54. Ouma, Y.O.; Tateishi, R. Urban Flood Vulnerability and Risk Mapping Using Integrated Multi‐Parametric AHP and GIS:
Methodological Overview and Case Study Assessment. Water 2014, 6, 1515–1545, doi:10.3390/w6061515.
55. Abdelkarim, A.; Al‐Alola, S.S.; Alogayell, H.M.; Mohamed, S.A.; Alkadi, I.I.; Ismail, I.Y. Integration of GIS‐Based Multicriteria
Decision Analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process to Assess Flood Hazard on the Al‐Shamal Train Pathway in Al‐Qurayyat
Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Water 2020, 12, 702, doi:10.3390/W12061702.
56. Samanta, S.; Koloa, C.; Pal, D.K.; Palsamanta, B. Flood Risk Analysis in Lower Part of Markham River Based on Multi‐Criteria
Decision Approach (MCDA). Hydrology 2016, 3, 29, doi:10.3390/hydrology3030029.
57. Wu, Y.; Zhong, P.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, B.; Ma, B.; Yan, K. Integrated Flood Risk Assessment and Zonation Method: A Case Study in
Huaihe River Basin, China. Nat. Hazards 2015, 78, 635–651, doi:10.1007/s11069‐015‐1737‐3.
58. Bisht, S.; Chaudhry, S.; Sharma, S.; Soni, S. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment Assessment of Flash Flood
Vulnerability Zonation through Geospatial Technique in High Altitude Himalayan Watershed, Himachal Pradesh India. Re‐
mote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2018, 12, 35–47, doi:10.1016/j.rsase.2018.09.001.
59. Ahmad, S.; Israr, M.; Ahmad, R.; Bilal, H.; Hayat, W. Assessment of River Shahpur for Flood Risk in Northern Pakistan. Civ.
Environ. Res. 2015, 7, 20–27.
60. Rahman, G.; Rahman, A.; Ullah, S.; Miandad, M.; Collins, A.E. Spatial Analysis of Landslide Susceptibility Using Failure Rate
Approach in the Hindu Kush Region, Pakistan. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 128, 1–16, doi:10.1007/s12040‐019‐1066‐0.
61. Rahman, G.; Collins, A.E. Geospatial Analysis of Landslide Susceptibility and Zonation in Shahpur Valley , Eastern Hindu
Kush Using Frequency Ratio Model. Pak. Acad. Sci. 2017, 54, 149–163.
62. ERRA. Report of Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority Government of Pakistan Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction &
Rehabilitation Agency Government of NWFP; ERRA: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2007; Available online: http://www.erra.gov.pk (as‐
sessed on 25 October 2020).
63. Khan, N.; Shah, S.J.; Rauf, T.; Zada, M.; Yukun, C.; Harbi, J. Socioeconomic Impacts of the Billion Trees Afforestation Program
in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province (KPK), Pakistan. Forests 2019, 10, 703, doi:10.3390/f10080703.
64. UNDP. District Disaster Risk Management Plan; UNDP: Islamabad; Pakistan, 2007. Available online: http://www.undp,org.pk
(assessed on 7 November 2020).
65. Khan, F.A.; Salman, A. A Simple Human Vulnerability Index to Climate Change Hazards for Pakistan. Int. J.Disaster Risk Sci.
2012, 3, 163–176, doi:10.1007/s13753‐012‐0017‐z.
66. Chaudhry, Q.U.Z. Climate Change Profile of Pakistan; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 2017.
67. Rincón, D.; Khan, U.T.; Armenakis, C. Flood Risk Mapping Using GIS and Multi‐Criteria Analysis: A Greater Toronto Area
Case Study. Geosciences 2018, 8, 275, doi:10.3390/geosciences8080275.
68. Mojaddadi, H.; Pradhan, B.; Nampak, H.; Ahmad, N.; Ghazali, A.H. bin Ensemble Machine‐Learning‐Based Geospatial Ap‐
proach for Flood Risk Assessment Using Multi‐Sensor Remote‐Sensing Data and GIS. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2017, 8,
1080–1102, doi:10.1080/19475705.2017.1294113.
69. Dewan, A.M. Floods in a Megacity: Geospatial Techniques in Assessing Hazards, Risk and Vulnerability; Springer: Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 2013; ISBN 9789400758742.
70. Papathoma‐Köhle, M.; Kappes, M.; Keiler, M.; Glade, T. Physical Vulnerability Assessment for Alpine Hazards: State of the
Art and Future Needs. Nat. Hazards 2011, 58, 645–680, doi:10.1007/s11069‐010‐9632‐4.
71. Ullah, Kashif, J.Z. GIS‐Based Flood Hazard Mapping Using Relative Frequency Ratio Method : A Case Study of Panjkora Riv‐
er Basin, Eastern Hindu Kush. PLoS ONE 2020, 1–18, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229153.
72. Kourgialas, N.N.; Karatzas, G.P.; Kourgialas, N.N.; Karatzas, G.P. Flood Management and a GIS Modelling Method to Assess
Flood‐Hazard Areas—A Case Study Flood Management and a GIS Modelling Method to Assess Flood‐Hazard Areas—A
Case Study. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2011, 6667, 212–225, doi:10.1080/02626667.2011.555836.
73. Yang, W.; Xu, K.; Lian, J.; Ma, C.; Bin, L. Integrated Flood Vulnerability Assessment Approach Based on TOPSIS and Shannon
Entropy Methods. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 269–280, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.015.
74. Ullah, S.; Farooq, M.; Shafique, M.; Siyab, M.A.; Kareem, F.; Dees, M. Spatial Assessment of Forest Cover and Land‐Use Changes
in the Hindu‐Kush Mountain Ranges of Northern Pakistan. J. Mt. Sci. 2016, 13, 1229–1237, doi:10.1007/s11629‐015‐3456‐3.
75. Ryu, S.; Song, J.J.; Kim, Y.; Jung, S.H.; Do, Y.; Lee, G.W. Spatial Interpolation of Gauge Measured Rainfall Using Compressed
Sensing. Asia‐Pac. J. Atmos. Sci. 2020, doi:10.1007/s13143‐020‐00200‐7.
76. Manandhar, Ramita, I.O.A.O.; Ancev, T. Improving the Accuracy of Land Use and Land Cover Classification of Landsat Data
Using Post‐Classification Enhancement. Remote Sens. 2009, 10, 330–344, doi:10.3390/rs1030330.
77. Ghebrezgabher, M.G.; Yang, T.; Yang, X.; Wang, X.; Khan, M. Extracting and Analyzing Forest and Woodland Cover Change in
Eritrea Based on Landsat Data Using Supervised Classification. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2016, 19, 37–47,
doi:10.1016/j.ejrs.2015.09.002.
78. Kumar, P.; Rani, M.; Pandey, P.C.; Majumdar, A.; Nathawat, M.S. Monitoring of Deforestation and Forest Degradation Using
Remote Sensing and GIS: A Case Study of Ranchi in Jharkhand (India). Rep. Opin. 2010, 2, 14–20.
79. Masuya, A.; Dewan, A.; Corner, R.J. Population Evacuation: Evaluating Spatial Distribution of Flood Shelters and Vulnerable Resi‐
dential Units in Dhaka with Geographic Information Systems. Nat. Hazards 2015, 78, 1859–1882, doi:10.1007/s11069‐015‐1802‐y.
80. Mizen, A.; Fry, R.; Rodgers, S. GIS‐Modelled Built‐Environment Exposures Reflecting Daily Mobility for Applications in Child
Health Research. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2020, 19, 1–13, doi:10.1186/s12942‐020‐00208‐2.
81. Zakour, M.J.; Gillespie, D.F. Community Disaster Vulnerability; Springer: New York, NY, USA 2013; ISBN 9781461457367.
82. FAO International Workshop on Policy Options For Socioeconomic Vulnerability Analysis: Conflict Analysis and Long‐Term Devel‐
opment Programmes and Strategies; 2003; Available online: http://www.fao.org.3/a‐ae517e.pdf (assessed on 20. November 2020).
83. Kienberger, S.; Blaschke, T.; Zaidi, R.Z. A Framework for Spatio‐Temporal Scales and Concepts from Different Disciplines:
The ‘Vulnerability Cube’. Nat. Hazards 2013, 68, 1343–1369, doi:10.1007/s11069‐012‐0513‐x.
84. Sun, R.; An, D.; Lu, W.; Shi, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, P. Impacts of a Flash Flood on Drinking Water Quality : Case
Study of Areas Most Affected by the 2012 Beijing Flood. HLY 2016, doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00071.
85. Neumayer, E.; Plümper, T. The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters: The Impact of Catastrophic Events on the Gender Gap
in Life Expectancy, 1981‐2002. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2007, 97, 551–566, doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8306.2007.00563.x.
86. Annas, S.; Rais, Z. K‐Means and GIS for Mapping Natural Disaster Prone Areas in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the The 7th
Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Education International Seminar (MSCEIS); EAI: Bandung, West Java, Indone‐
sia, 30 December 2020; pp. 1–7.
87. Feloni, E. Flood Vulnerability Assessment Using a GIS‐Based Multi‐Criteria Approach—The Case of Attica Region. Flood Risk
Manag. WILEY 2020, 13, 1–15, doi:10.1111/jfr3.12563.
88. SAATY, R.W. The Anslytic Hierarchy Process‐What and How It Is Used. Mat/d Model. 1987, 9, 161–176.
89. Kazuva, E.; Zhang, J.; Tong, Z.; Si, A.; Na, L. The DPSIR Model for Environmental Risk Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste
in Dar Es Salaam City , Tanzania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1–30, doi:10.3390/ijerph15081692.
90. Le Cozannet, G.; Garcin, M.; Bulteau, T.; Mirgon, C.; Yates, M.L.; Méndez, M.; Baills, A.; Idier, D.; Oliveros, C. An
AHP‐Derived Method for Mapping the Physical Vulnerability of Coastal Areas at Regional Scales. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
2013, 13, 1209–1227, doi:10.5194/nhess‐13‐1209‐2013.
91. Chen, W.; Han, H.; Huang, B.; Huang, Q.; Fu, X. Variable‐Weighted Linear Combination Model for Landslide Susceptibility
Mapping: Case Study in the Shennongjia Forestry District, China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo‐Inf. 2017, 6, 347, doi:10.3390/ijgi6110347.
92. Al‐Hanbali, A.; Alsaaideh, B.; Kondoh, A. Using GIS‐Based Weighted Linear Combination Analysis and Remote Sensing
Techniques to Select Optimum Solid Waste Disposal Sites within Mafraq City, Jordan. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 2011, 03, 267–278,
doi:10.4236/jgis.2011.34023.
93. Debortoli, N.S.; Camarinha, P.I.M.; Marengo, J.A.; Rodrigues, R.R. An Index of Brazil’s Vulnerability to Expected Increases in
Natural Flash Flooding and Landslide Disasters in the Context of Climate Change. Nat. Hazards 2017, 86, 557–582,
doi:10.1007/s11069‐016‐2705‐2.

GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Approach For Flood Vulner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Approach For Flood Vulner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Approach For Flood Vulner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

GIS‐Based Multi‐Criteria Approach for Flood Vulnerability

1 Institute of Natural Disaster Research, School of Environment, Northeast Normal University,

Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China

* Correspondence: zhangjq022@nenu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86‐135‐9608‐6467; Fax: +86‐431‐8916‐5624

Sustainability 2021, 13, 3126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063126 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

1.1. GIS‐Based MCDA

1.2. Objectives of the Study

1.3. Description of the Study Site

Figure 1. Study area map of District Shangla; Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

According to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, the District’s overall population is

2. Materials and Methods

Figure 2. Stepwise framework of Methodology.

2.2. Data Description and Their Sources

Table 1. Data type and sources used in the current study.

2.3. Selection of the Criteria, Alternatives, and Their Processing

2.3.1. Criteria for Physical Vulnerability Mapping

2.3.2. Criteria for Coping Capacity Mapping

2.3.3. Criteria for Socioeconomic Vulnerability Mapping

2.3.4. Alternative Ranking, Standardization, and Classification of Criterion Layer

Table 2. Alternate grading arrangement based on the input to a flood disaster.

Component Criteria Vulnerability Ranking

For standardization and classification, relatively two strategies were assumed to

2.3.5. Weighting the Criteria Using AHP

Table 3. Showing the intensity and scale of importance [88].

Intensity of Importance Definition Explanation

Measuring the Consistency

2.3.6. Linear Weighted Combination Method

2.4. Vulnerability Evaluation

3. Results and Discussion

Table 4. Weighting the criteria using analytical hierarchy process (AHP).

Components of Vulnerability Criteria Weight Priority %

Pacca houses 0.12 12%

Table 5. The physical vulnerability of the study area after reclassification.

Vulnerability Level Area in sq.km Area % Direction

3.2. Coping Capacity Mapping

Table 6. Coping capacity of the study area after reclassification.

Coping Capacity Area in km2 Area% Direction

3.3. Socioeconomic Vulnerability Mapping

separately. The socioeconomic vulnerability of these susceptible zones is because of a

Table 7. The socioeconomic vulnerability of the study area after reclassification.

Vulnerability Level Area in km2 Area % Direction

3.4. Vulnerability without Incorporated Coping Capacity

Vulnerability Level Area in km2 Area % Direction

3.5. Vulnerability with Integrated Coping Capacity

Vulnerability Level Area in km2 Area % Directions

3.6. Validation of Vulnerability Evaluation

Table 10. Validation of vulnerability assessment from the field.

Type of Re‐ Total Number of Respondents Comments

4. Conclusions and Policy Implications

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at

You might also like