Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 409

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 access
Darabi, Hamid, Choubin, Bahram, Rahmati, Omid, Torabi Haghighi, Ali, Pradhan, Biswajeet, Kløve, Bjørn·2019·Journal of Hydrology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.002

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 55 references

Cited by

See all 409

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.