Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Flood susceptibility mapping with machine learning, multi-criteria decision analysis and ensemble using Dempster Shafer Theory

Gudiyangada Nachappa, Thimmaiah, Tavakkoli Piralilou, Sepideh, Gholamnia, Khalil, Ghorbanzadeh, Omid, Rahmati, Omid, Blaschke, Thomas·2020·Journal of Hydrology

Abstract

Abstract Floods are one of the most widespread natural hazards occurring across the globe. The main objective of this study was to produce flood susceptibility maps for the province of Salzburg, Austria, using two multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) models including analytical hierarchical process (AHP) and analytical network process (ANP) and two machine learning (ML) models including random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM). Additionally, we compare which of the MCDA and ML models are better suited for flood susceptibility and evaluate the use of Dempster Shafer Theory (DST) for optimising the resulting flood susceptibility maps based on eleven flood conditioning factors: elevation, slope, aspect, topographic wetness index (TWI), stream power index (SPI), normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI), geology, rainfall, land cover, distance to roads and distance to drainage. The accuracy evaluation of the flood susceptibility maps through the AUC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) method along with the relative flood density (R-Index) shows that RF (AUC = 87.8%) and SVM (AUC = 87%) outperform the ANP (AUC = 86.6%) and AHP (AUC = 85.9%) models. Therefore, the predictive performance of ML models was slightly better than the MCDA models. The DST could further increase the accuracy of both ML models (AUC = 88.3%) and MCDA models (AUC = 87.3%). However, the best accuracy (AUC = 89.3%) is reached through an ensemble of all four models.

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.2020.125275

Cites

66 of 66 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 66 references

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
Gudiyangada Nachappa, T., Tavakkoli Piralilou, S., Gholamnia, K., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Rahmati, O., & Blaschke, T.
Venue
Journal of Hydrology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
590
Pages
125275
ISSN
0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3042024008
Cited by
401
References
66
FWCI
16.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Flood susceptibility mapping with machine learning, multi-criteria decision analysis and ensemble using Dempster Shafer Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125275
The paper
Gudiyangada Nachappa, T., Tavakkoli Piralilou, S., Gholamnia, K., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Rahmati, O., & Blaschke, T. (2020). Flood susceptibility mapping with machine learning, multi-criteria decision analysis and ensemble using Dempster Shafer Theory. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125275

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.