The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Urban flood risk mapping using the GARP and QUEST models: A comparative study of machine learning techniques
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Flood risk mapping and modeling is important to prevent urban flood damage. In this study, a flood risk map was produced with limited hydrological and hydraulic data using two state-of-the-art machine learning models: Genetic Algorithm Rule-Set Production (GARP) and Quick Unbiased Efficient Statistical Tree (QUEST). The flood conditioning factors used in modeling were: precipitation, slope, curve number, distance to river, distance to channel, depth to groundwater, land use, and elevation. Based on available reports and field surveys for Sari city (Iran), 113 points were identified as flooded areas (with each flooded zone assigned a value of 1). Different conditioning factors, including urban density, quality of buildings, age of buildings, population density, and socio-economic conditions, were taken into account to analyze flood vulnerability. In addition, the weight of these conditioning factors was determined based on expert knowledge and Fuzzy Analytical Network Process (FANP). An urban flood risk map was then produced using flood hazard and flood vulnerability maps. The area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) and Kappa statistic were applied to evaluate model performance. The results demonstrated that the GARP model (AUC-ROC = 93.5%, Kappa = 0.86) had higher performance accuracy than the QUEST model (AUC-ROC = 89.2%, Kappa = 0.79). The results also indicated that distance to channel, land use, and elevation played major roles in flood hazard determination, whereas population density, quality of buildings, and urban density were the most important factors in terms of vulnerability. These findings demonstrate that machine learning models can help in flood risk mapping, especially in areas where detailed hydraulic and hydrological data are not available.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation
Phillips, S. J., & Dudík, M. (2008) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x · Cited by 5,890
The GARP modelling system: problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction
STOCKWELL, D. (1999) · International Journal of Geographical Information Science · doi:10.1080/136588199241391 · Cited by 1,395
Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method
Wu, W.-W., & Lee, Y.-T. (2007) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2005.12.005 · Cited by 1,245
Comparing global vegetation maps with the Kappa statistic
Monserud, R. A., & Leemans, R. (1992) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/0304-3800(92)90003-w · Cited by 1,106
Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2012) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.162 · Cited by 971
SPLIT SELECTION METHODS FOR CLASSIFICATION TREES
Loh, W., & Shih, Y. (1997) · Cited by 944
Future projections for Mexican faunas under global climate change scenarios
Peterson, A. T., Ortega-Huerta, M. A., Bartley, J., Sánchez-Cordero, V., Soberón, J., Buddemeier, R. H., & Stockwell, D. R. B. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/416626a · Cited by 900
Tehrany, M. S., Pradhan, B., & Jebur, M. N. (2013) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.09.034 · Cited by 843
Self-citationTehrany, M. S., Pradhan, B., Mansor, S., & Ahmad, N. (2015) · CATENA · doi:10.1016/j.catena.2014.10.017 · Cited by 827
Self-citationFlood hazard risk assessment model based on random forest
Wang, Z., Lai, C., Chen, X., Yang, B., Zhao, S., & Bai, X. (2015) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.008 · Cited by 822
Cited by
Flood Susceptibility Mapping through the GIS-AHP Technique Using the Cloud
Swain, K. C., Singha, C., & Nayak, L. (2020) · ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · doi:10.3390/ijgi9120720 · Cited by 273
Examining flood vulnerability mapping approaches in developing countries: A scoping review
Membele, G. M., Naidu, M., & Mutanga, O. (2022) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102766 · Cited by 89
Torabi Haghighi, A., Darabi, H., Shahedi, K., Solaimani, K., & Kløve, B. (2020) · Environmental Modeling & Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10666-019-09665-x · Cited by 84
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Darabi, H., Choubin, B., Rahmati, O., Torabi Haghighi, A., Pradhan, B., & Kløve, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Hydrology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 569
- Pages
- 142-154
- ISSN
- 0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2903266193
- Cited by
- 409
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 21.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Urban flood risk mapping using the GARP and QUEST models: A comparative study of machine learning techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.002
- The paper
- Darabi, H., Choubin, B., Rahmati, O., Torabi Haghighi, A., Pradhan, B., & Kløve, B. (2019). Urban flood risk mapping using the GARP and QUEST models: A comparative study of machine learning techniques. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.