nbul 2004 
tion and 
ble areas 
' different 
'ulnerable 
ture is to 
asis of an 
udgments 
e applied. 
terion is a 
evaluated 
riteria are 
roducing, 
led in this 
| by using 
cing and 
yrs. In the 
imerically 
rea. This 
| Ranking 
«ed in the 
generate 
actor was 
ar causing 
factors. ! 
ictor as in 
raw data 
2 various 
> raw data 
aL, 1997. 
ear Scale 
yrocedure, 
thod for 
e. 0 is the 
ized score 
criterion 
t numceric 
1t number 
n 0 and |, 
) and 1 as 
d of the 
equivalent 
is used in 
d involves 
parison of 
subjective 
of weights 
(1980) in 
vn as the 
id, 19993; 
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B2. Istanbul 2004 
iastman et al, 1995; Malczewski, 1996). The criterion 
pairwise comparison matrix takes the pairwise comparisons 
as an input and produces the relative weights as output, and 
the AHP provides a mathematical method of wanslating this 
matrix into a vector of relative weights for the criteria. 
(Malezewski (1996) and Eastman et al. (1995) have evaluated 
this procedure very clearly. 
A decision rule is a method of weighting or scoring criteria to 
assess their importance (Heywood et al., 1993). It is the 
procedure by which criteria are combined to arrive at a 
particular evaluation, and by which evaluations are compared 
and acted upon (Eastman et al., 1995). The aim of MADM 
analysis is to choose the best or the most preferred 
alternative. There are many decision rules that can be used in 
MCDM process. Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) is the 
most often used techniques for tackling spatial MADM and 
this approach was used as a decision rule in this study. 
2.5 Sensitivity Analysis 
The main purpose in sensitivity analysis is to examine how 
sensitive the choices are to the changes in criteria weights. 
This is useful in situations such as where uncertainties exist 
in the definition of the importance of different factors. 
Sensitivity analysis with examples can be found in Lowry et 
al. (1995). 
3. CASE STUDY 
3.1 Study Area 
The West of Black Sea in the north of Turkey has the heavy 
local rains and snow melting, especially in springs. In this 
region, there are two main river basins: Filyos Basin and 
Bartin Basin. Being a floodprone area, Bartin is selected as 
the study area (Figure 3.1). It covers the subbasins of 
Ovacuma and Ulus Creeks, which are two of the upstream 
branches of Bartin River. Black Sea climate is dominant in 
the basin and heavy rainfall and variable plant cover are 
observed in the basin. The mean annual rainfall observed at 
Ulus meteorological station is 984.5 mm (Türkiye Akarsu 
Havzalari Tagkin Yilligi, 1998). 
3.2 Criteria Evaluation 
For all criteria that are seen as map layer, the criterion values 
are generated. The causative factors for the flooding in every 
watershed like annual rainfall, size of watershed, basin slope, 
gradient of main drainage channel, drainage density, land use 
and the soil type were taken into account according to the 
literature surveys (Eimers et al, 2000; Henderson et al., 
1996; and Pramojanee et al, 2001). The selected three 
criterion maps (drainage density, land use and soil type) are 
illustrated with their classification values in Figure 3.2. The 
original values can be found in Yalcin (2002). 
3.3 Assigning Criteria Weights 
The purpose of the criterion weighting is to express the 
importance of each criterion relative to other criteria. The 
more important criterion had the greater weight in the overall 
evaluation. In this study ranking method and pairwise 
comparison method were introduced and applied. The results 
were compared with the Boolean Overlay Approach. GIS 
should act as the interface between technology and the 
361 
decision maker with integrating MCE methods into the GIS 
(Hey wood et al., 1993). Different decision makers may apply 
different criterion and assign different weights for each 
criterion according to their preferences. The decision maker 
selects the criteria and compares them in a comparison 
matrix. The weights of the criteria and the consistency ratio 
of weighting procedure were calculated in interface module. 
  
  
  
  
  
j es 32-30 32:45 N 33400" 
  
  
42°00" 
002 
Karadeniz 
  
41*45' 
VG Tk 
    
= 2) +", 3 MES 
un Ü Ye j m 
Dem S C e SA SSL = 
E e I X S URS po dE PT 
   
  
    
   
        
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
2 14 CÉLLGUNMPD-DSIE [7 decem d; = 
A S "| Rüunpft Daging Starío) A + aer. cT. 
s [S EET. EN $ 
X iy SN 5X 7 E y^  UlusBasin 
SU UT. ; Ped 
XC Gu d E 
ee 30 3 Kilometers À 
u mum / 
e 3 = 
= 5 
i 
32*15' 32*20* 32:45' 33*00* 
Figure 3.1: Study area. 
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 3.2: The selected three criterion maps with criterion 
values.