JDR Vol.17 No.3 pp. 431-443
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2022.p0431


The Application of AHP to Determine the Priority Drainage System on Flood Mitigation in Surabaya – Indonesia

Yang Ratri Savitri*1,*2, Ryuji Kakimoto*3,†, Rawshan Ara Begum*4, Nadjadji Anwar*2, Wasis Wardoyo*2, and Erma Suryani*5

*1Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kumamoto University
2-39-1 Kurokami, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, Kumamoto 860-8555, Japan

*2Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Jawa Timur, Indonesia

*3Faculty of Advanced Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan

Corresponding author

*4Centre for Corporate Sustainability and Environmental Finance, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia

*5Department of Information System, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Jawa Timur, Indonesia

July 20, 2020
January 18, 2022
April 1, 2022
analytical hierarchy process, decision making, flood risk, drainage, watershed

Natural disasters are common worldwide, especially in tropical countries. Floods are one such frequent disaster that occur in the tropical country of Indonesia. Floods cause disasters in many vulnerable societies living in the area. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct risk assessments for flood mitigation. The objective of this research is to support decision-making for flood risk assessment by selecting priority sub-systems. The research was conducted in Surabaya, East Java, and Indonesia. The Surabaya drainage system is divided into five districts consisting of several sub-systems facing inundation problems. This causes challenges for the government in selecting which sub-systems should be prioritized to overcome these problems. Consequently, a rank priority for sub-systems is required. This research validated whether the Analytics Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was applicable and appropriate to weight priority factors to select the priority drainage system. It weighs historical flood data by considering several criteria related to floods, consisting of flood hazards, social economics, and the environment. Flood hazard is defined as the severity level of flooding indicated by three indicators: inundation area, inundation depth, and inundation duration. Social-economics is a criterion covering population density and land use types consisting of residential areas, commercial and services areas, public facilities, industrial areas, port areas, and mix used development support areas. Environment is a criteria indicated by green open space, flood-prone areas, watershed catchment areas, and storage areas. The weighting result convinced the decision makers as to the related parameters which should be considered in order to support appropriate and effective flood mitigation. Further, due to budget constraints, the results of the research can be used to assist the municipal government in selecting which drainage system should be prioritized for management. The AHP result reveals that the priority drainage systems are Wonorejo sub system (Jambangan district), Greges sub system (Genteng district), Kedurus sub system (Wiyung district), Kalibokor sub system (Gubeng district), and Tambak Dono sub system (Tandes district). The result was confirmed to several respondents from Department of Public Works, Highways, and Drainage Management involved with the drainage system in Surabaya. It is indicates that the AHP results mostly are applicable to the existing condition.

Cite this article as:
Yang Ratri Savitri, Ryuji Kakimoto, Rawshan Ara Begum, Nadjadji Anwar, Wasis Wardoyo, and Erma Suryani, “The Application of AHP to Determine the Priority Drainage System on Flood Mitigation in Surabaya – Indonesia,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.17, No.3, pp. 431-443, 2022.
Data files:
  1. [1] Y. Budiyono, J. Aerts, J. Brinkman, M. A. Marfai, and P. Ward, “Flood risk assessment for delta mega-cities: a case study of Jakarta,” Natural Hazards, Vol.75, pp. 389-413, 2015.
  2. [2] J. H. Danumah, S. N. Odai, B. M. Saley, J. Szarzynski, M. Thiel, A. Kwaku, F. K. Kouame, and L. Y. Akpa, “Flood risk assessment and mapping in Abidjan district using multi-criteria analysis (AHP) model and geoinformation techniques, (cote d’ivoire),” Geoenvironmental Disasters, Vol.3, Article No.10, 2016.
  3. [3] J. Yin, D. Yu, Z. Yin, J. Wang, and S. Xu, “Multiple scenario analyses of Huangpu River flooding,” Natural Hazard, Vol.66, pp. 577-589, 2012.
  4. [4] C. J. van Westen, D. Alkema, M. Damen, N. Kerle, and N. C. Kingma, “Multi-hazard risk assessment – Distance education course – Guide Book,” United Nations University – ITC School on Disaster Geo-information Management (UNU-ITC DGIM), 2011.
  5. [5] M. M. de Brito and M. Evers, “Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art,” Natural Hazard Earth System Science, Vol.16, pp. 1019-1033, 2016.
  6. [6] S. Stefanidis and D. Stathis, “Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using AHP,” Natural Hazards, Vol.68, pp. 569-585, 2013.
  7. [7] N. Ö. Ergenç and Ş. Baris, “Prioritization of hazard profile for Instanbul using Analytical Hierarchy Process,” Natural Hazards, Vol.90, pp. 325-336, 2018.
  8. [8] F. J. Carmone, A. Kara, and S. H. Zanakis, “A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison,” European J. of Operational Research, Vol.102, pp. 538-553, 1997.
  9. [9] X.-L. Yang, J.-H. Ding, and H. Hou, “Application of a triangular fuzzy AHP approach for flood risk evaluation and response measures analysis,” Natural Hazards, Vol.68, pp. 657-674, 2013.
  10. [10] Y.-R. Chen, C.-H. Yeh, and B. Yu, “Integrated application of the analytic hierarchy process and the geographic information system for flood risk assessment and flood plain management in Taiwan,” Natural Hazards, Vol.59, pp. 1261-1276, 2011.
  11. [11] R. Sinha, G. V. Bapalu, L. K. Singh, and B. Rath, “Flood risk analysis in the Kosi river basin, north Bihar using multi parametric approach of analytical hierarchy process,” J. of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, Vol.36, pp. 335-349, 2008.
  12. [12] C. Luu, J. V. Meding, and S. Kanjanabootra, “Assessing flood hazard using flood marks and analytic hierarchy process approach: a case study for the 2013 flood event in Quang Nam, Vietnam,” Natural Hazards, Vol.90, pp. 1031-1050, 2017.
  13. [13] A. Ghosh and S. K. Kar, “Application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for flood risk assessment: a case study in Malda district of West Bengal, India,” Natural Hazards, Vol.94, pp. 349-368, 2018.
  14. [14] O. Rahmati, H. Zeinivand, and M. Besharat, “Flood hazard zoning in Yasooj region, Iran, using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis,” Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, Vol.7, No.3, pp. 1000-1017, 2016.
  15. [15] G. Demir, M. Aytekin, A. Akgün, S. B. Ikizler, and O. Tatar, “A comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping of the eastern part of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey) by likelihood-frequency ratio and analytic hierarchy process methods,” Natural Hazards, Vol.65, pp. 1481-1506, 2013.
  16. [16] D. Myronidis, C. Papageorgiou, and S. Theophanous, “Landslide susceptibility mapping based on landslide history and analytic hierarchy process (AHP),” Natural Hazards, Vol.81, pp. 245-263, 2015.
  17. [17] M. Palchaudhuri and S. Biswas, “Application of AHP with GIS in drought risk assessment for Puruliya district, India,” Natural Hazards, Vol.84, pp. 1905-1920, 2016.
  18. [18] H. Febrianto, A. Fariza, and J. A. N. Hasim, “Urban Flood Risk Mapping Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Natural Break Classification (Case study: Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia),” 2016 Int. Conf. on Knowledge Creation and Intelligent Computing (KCIC), doi: 10.1109/KCIC.2016.7883639, 2016.
  19. [19] A. H. Imaduddina and W. H. S. W, “Sea Level Rise Flood Zones: Mitigating Floods in Surabaya Coastal Area,” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.135, pp. 123-129, 2014.
  20. [20] T. T. T. Le, T. V. Tran, V. H. Hoang, V. T. Bui, T. K. T. Bui, and H. P. Nguyen, “Developing a Landslide Susceptibility Map Using the Analytic Hierarchical Process in Ta Van and Hau Thao Communes, Sapa, Vietnam,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.16, No.4, pp. 529-538, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2021.p0529, 2021.
  21. [21] N. T. Kien, T. V. Tran, V. T. H. Lien, P. L. H. Linh, and N. Q. Thanh, “Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Based on the Combination of Bivariate Statistics and Modified Analytic Hierarchy Process Methods: A Case Study of Tinh Tuc Town, Nguyen Binh District, Cao Bang Province, Vietnam,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.16, No.4, pp. 521-528, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2021.p0521, 2021.
  22. [22] B. National, “Agency for Disaster Management,” National Disaster Management Plan, 2010-2014.
  23. [23] BPS, “Statistical Year Book of Indonesia,” BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2019.
  24. [24] J. Sanyal and X. Lu, “GIS based flood hazard mapping at different administrative scales: a case study in Gangetic West Bengal, India,” Singapore J. of Tropical Geography, Vol.27, No.2, pp. 207-220, 2006.
  25. [25] F. Yulianto, P. Sofan, A. Zubaidah, K. A. D. Sukowati, J. M. Pasaribu, and M. R. Khomarudin, “Detecting areas affected by flood using multi-temporal ALOS PALSAR remotely sensed data in Karawang, West Java, Indonesia,” Natural Hazards, Vol.77, pp. 959-985, 2015.
  26. [26] SDMP, “Surabaya Drainage Master Plan 2018–2038,” Surabaya, 2018.
  27. [27] SDMP, “Surabaya Drainage Master Plan 1998–2018,” BAPPEKO, Surabaya, 2000.
  28. [28] G. Papaioannou, L. Vasiliades, and A. Loukas, “Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework for Potential Flood Prone Areas Mapping,” Water Resources Management, Vol.29, pp. 399-418, 2014.
  29. [29] S.-P. Cheng and R.-Y. Wang, “Analyzing Hazard Potential of Typhoon Damage by Applying Grey Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Natural Hazards, Vol.33, pp. 77-103, 2004.
  30. [30] A. Chakraborty and P. K. Joshi, “Mapping disaster vulnerability in India using analytical hierarchy process,” Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, Vol.7, No.1, pp. 308-325, 2014.
  31. [31] R. Ramanathan, “A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment,” J. of Environmental Management, Vol.63, pp. 27-35, 2001.
  32. [32] H.a.D.M. Department of Public Works, 2018.
  33. [33] RTRW, “Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kota Surabaya Tahun 2014–2034,” Surabaya, 2014.
  34. [34] B. Maaskant, S. M. Jonkman, and L. M. Bouwer, “Future risk of flooding: an analysis of changes in potential loss of life in South Holland (The Netherlands),” Environmental Science and Policy, Vol.12, pp. 157-169, 2009.
  35. [35] BPS, “Statistical Yearbook of Surabaya,” BPS-Statistics Surabaya, 2018.
  36. [36] T. Erden and H. Karaman, “Analysis of earthquake parameters to generate hazard maps by integrating AHP and GIS for Küçükçekmece region,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol.12, pp. 475-483, 2012.
  37. [37] M. Miyamoto, R. Osti, and T. Okazumi, “Development of an Integrated Decision Making Method for Effective Flood Early Warning System,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9, No.1, pp. 55-68, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2014.p0055, 2014.
  38. [38] R. M. Murali, M. Ankita, S. Amrita, and P. Vethamony, “Coastal vulnerability assessment of Puducherry coast, India, using the analytical hierarchical process,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol.13, pp. 3291-3311, 2013.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on May. 20, 2022