Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of statistical methods and multi-criteria decision making to map flood hazard susceptibility in Northern Iran

Arabameri, Alireza, Rezaei, Khalil, Cerdà, Artemi, Conoscenti, Christian, Kalantari, Zahra·2019·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

In north of Iran, flood is one of the most important natural hazards that annually inflict great economic damages on humankind infrastructures and natural ecosystems. The Kiasar watershed is known as one of the critical areas in north of Iran, due to numerous floods and waste of water and soil resources, as well as related economic and ecological losses. However, a comprehensive and systematic research to identify flood-prone areas, which may help to establish management and conservation measures, has not been carried out yet. Therefore, this study tested four methods: evidential belief function (EBF), frequency ratio (FR), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity To ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Vlse Kriterijumsk Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) for flood hazard susceptibility mapping (FHSM) in this area. These were combined in two methodological frameworks involving statistical and multi-criteria decision making approaches. The efficiency of statistical and multi-criteria methods in FHSM were compared by using area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, seed cell area index and frequency ratio. A database containing flood inventory maps and flood-related conditioning factors was established for this watershed. The flood inventory maps produced included 132 flood conditions, which were randomly classified into two groups, for training (70%) and validation (30%). Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) indicated that slope, distance to stream and land use/land cover are of key importance in flood occurrence in the study catchment. In validation results, the EBF model had a better prediction rate (0.987) and success rate (0.946) than FR, TOPSIS and VIKOR (prediction rate 0.917, 0.888, and 0.810; success rate 0.939, 0.904, and 0.735, respectively). Based on their frequency ratio and seed cell area index values, all models except VIKOR showed acceptable accuracy of classification.

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.scitotenv.2019.01.021

Cites

78 of 78 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 78 references

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Arabameri, A., Rezaei, K., Cerdà, A., Conoscenti, C., & Kalantari, Z.
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
660
Pages
443-458
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2907882001
Cited by
304
References
78
FWCI
18.76
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: A comparison of statistical methods and multi-criteria decision making to map flood hazard susceptibility in Northern Iran. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.021
The paper
Arabameri, A., Rezaei, K., Cerdà, A., Conoscenti, C., & Kalantari, Z. (2019). A comparison of statistical methods and multi-criteria decision making to map flood hazard susceptibility in Northern Iran. Science of The Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.021

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.