World Applied Sciences Journal 3 (Supple 1): 66-72, 2008

ISSN 1818-4952
IDOSI Publications, 2008

A Fuzzy-AHP Decision Support System for Evaluation of

Cities Vulnerability Against Earthquakes
1,2

R. Aghataher, 3M.R. Delavar, 2M.H. Nami and 2,3N. Samnay

Department of GIS, Islamic Azad University, Shahre Rey Branch, Tehran, Iran
2
Department of GIS in National Geographic Organization, Tehran, Iran
3
Department of Surveying and Geomatics Engineering, Center of Excellence in
Geomatics Engineering and Disaster Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: Estimation of urban vulnerability to natural hazards such as earthquakes can be considered as an
ill-structured problem (i.e. a problem for which there is no unique, identifiable, objectively optimal solution).
This paper outlines developing a spatial decision support system (SDSS) to assist earthquake vulnerability
assessment. There are different criteria in characterizing real world for disaster management. This paper
addresses a suitable method for weighing different related factors affecting in decision making process and
managing uncertainties of defined factors which is inherited from reality. These two problems, especially the
latter, result in biases in decisions. The proposed solution could be uncertainty absorption, evaluation and
documentation at each step, especially in real world characterization and hypotheses derivation. This research
deals with such treatment for weighing and normalizing contributed factors in vulnerability of cities' population
against earthquakes using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. The results shown that this method
provide high degree of analytical capabilities and can be used as the basis for further research due to
introduction of other effective factors such as social and economic situations) in earthquakes' vulnerability.
Key words: Analytic hierarchy process % Decision support system % Disaster management % Multicriteria
decision making % Fuzzy logic
INTRODUCTION
Over the past two decades, vulnerability has come to
represent an essential concept in hazards research and in
the development of mitigation strategies at the local,
national and international levels. Several models of
urban vulnerability have been proposed to address the
various ways by which society becomes subject to
hazard impacts. The value of SDSS in supporting urban
vulnerability analysis arises directly from the benefit of
integrating a technology designed to support spatial
decision making into a field with a strong need to address
numerous critical spatial decisions.
Tehran as a mega city located in active seismic areas
is an earthquake prone region based on the historical
records available [1]. The speed and quality of decisions
taken in different disaster situations are critical factors
for people to survive. These decisions are mainly,
tactical and operational under the scope of earthquake
disaster management. In this way, decision support

systems (DSS) can play a vital role in the decision process

enhancement [2].
This paper concentrated on vulnerability assessment
in the field of disaster management. Derived priorities
used to integrated the factors to product the vulnerability
map of Tehran which is then qualified. Besides,
interpretation of the priorities revealed important points
about the real condition of old and newly built areas of
Tehran which could be used by Tehran disaster managers
for their resource allocations. Outcomes of this research
provide high degree of analytical capabilities and can be
used as the basis for further research due to introduction
of other effective factors such as social and economic
situations in earthquakes' vulnerability.
Disaster management's processes are generally
characterizing real world as composition of different
criteria. Applying a suitable approach in order to identify
and weight different related factors is an important task in
this framework. The problem raised here is the different
quality of spatial factors participating in decision making

Corresponding Author: R. Aghataher, GIS Department, Islamic Azad University, Shahre Rey Branch, Tehran, Iran
66

World Appl. Sci. J., 3 (Supple 1): 66-72, 2008

process and also existence of uncertainties in these

factors which is inherited from reality [3-5].
The above problems, especially the latter, result in
biases in decisions. The proposed solution could be
uncertainty absorption, evaluation and documentation in
each step, especially in real world characterization and
hypotheses derivation. This research deals with such
treatment for weighing and normalizing contributed
factors in vulnerability of cities' population against
earthquakes using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The
main objective of this paper is to propose a new approach
within the AHP framework for tackling the uncertainty and
imprecision of weighting factors.
ALEP (Action Language to Evacuation Plans) is a
decision support system using Answer Set Programming
as an extension of a Geographic Information System to
model vehicular evacuation plans. In order to achieve this
objective, different disaster scenarios were modeled and
in each situation an action language to model and give
solution to vehicular evacuation plans was defined [6].
CLG-DSS (Centre for Logistics and Goods Transportdecision support systems) model presents a decision
support system, which makes it possible for decision
makers to assess various uncertainties in project appraisal
in a systematic and explicit way. The DSS model,
developed within the Danish Centre for Logistics and
Goods Transport (CLG), is based on cost-benefit analysis
embedded in a wider multi-criteria analysis and makes use
of scenario analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. A
particular concern in the model is handling of varying
information across the assessment criteria and the
application of scenario analysis to inform the multi-criteria
system parameter setting [7].
Another study deals with the problem of assessing
the performance of a set of decision making units
(DMUs), simultaneously considering different kinds of
information and performance indexes deriving from
various analyses. The tool for integrating heterogeneous
data is a model of artificial intelligence; fuzzy logic is
applied to multi-criteria decision support systems. The
results obtained are a ranks order of the evaluated units
and a holistic performance assessment. An approach has
been made to develop a decision-making system (DMS),
which will take decision under complex environment. The
probability of uncertainty guides the respective system to
define the direction automatically to take the decision [8].
Although existing literature provides a way to FuzzyAHP approach for DSSs, the authors have been found no
report regarding implementation of this paradigm to deal
with earthquake management. This paper proposes a new

approach using fuzzy-AHP approach in order to handle

and manage the uncertainty and imprecision of weighting
factors in earthquake disaster management.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Decision making in a complex and dynamic
environment is a very difficult task that requires new
techniques of computational intelligence for building
adaptive, hybrid intelligent decision support systems.
Here we present a contribution to the construction of
tools for decision-making support in organizational
systems from the uncertainty aspect through fuzzy AHP.
MATERIALS
Spatial data is widely used for decision making in
various applications and serves as the basis to various
SDSS. Although in many cases the contributions of
spatial data to decision making processes are implicit, its
potential impact on the overall process is likely to be
extensive [9-10].
As some level of uncertainty will always be present
in the overall decision making process, a framework that
can incorporate uncertain information should be
employed. One of the well known approaches to decision
making based on imprecise information is fuzzy logic.
This framework is frequently used for decision making
in the presence of uncertainties due to its ability to
express imprecise expert knowledge and rules.Many
organizational decisions are made through evaluating
a set of alternatives and then selecting the most
satisfactory one from them based on the information at
hand and the perspectives of decision makers. Multiple
criteria are often used to evaluate the set of alternatives
where some criteria could be more important than others
in selecting the most satisfactory one [11-13].
AHP Approach in Earthquake Management: Analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) is one of the commonly used
methods for systematic and structured analysis and
decision making in complex situations. It is a mathematical
decision-making technique that allows consideration of
both qualitative and quantitative aspects of decisions
[14-15]. It reduces complex decisions to a series of oneby-one comparisons and then synthesizes the results.
AHP is a three part process which includes identifying
and organizing decision objectives, criteria, constraints
and alternatives into a hierarchy; and the synthesis, using
the solution algorithm of the results of the comparisons
over all the levels.

67

World Appl. Sci. J., 3 (Supple 1): 66-72, 2008

Considering the represented hypothesis and the

analysis, AHP method is based on the following
procedure which employed in this paper for earthquake
management:
C
C
C
C
C
C

[16-17]. A new fuzzy prioritization method, which derives

crisp priorities (criteria weights and scores of alternatives)
from consistent and inconsistent fuzzy comparison
matrices is described.

Selection of a simplified problem of earthquake

vulnerability evaluation
Defining scenarios which describe the problem
Defining effective factors and categorizing them into
homogeneous categories
Structuring the categories into a hierarchical
structure
Applying AHP computation over the structure
Applying consistency and sensitivity analysis over
the AHP results

METHODS
The difference of our approach and AHP is
implemented in the pair-wise comparison of weights in
comparison matrix which is introduced as (a,b,c). It also
followed this trend adding preliminary fuzzy logic
concepts to distinct analytic hierarchical process. Based
on this modified approach it developed a hierarchy of
twelve effective factors in earthquakes' vulnerability
due to definition of their priorities against three
earthquake scenarios which are defined by European
Committee. Then the priorities are derived out from
12 questionnaires of pair-wised comparison of factors
filled by related experts.
In this way, in spite of one weight, we will define 3
weights. The related weights with assumption of
triangular membership function are considered (Figure1)
which includes three sequential weights (Table1).
Thus, fuzzy membership function due to the
triangular weights is:

In step 1, it is expected that the simplification carried

out focusing on earthquake's fatalities, as the most
important factor for earthquakes vulnerability evaluation.
Other factors have to be selected in relation to this factor.
This trend is continued until all required factors derived
out. Scenarios are also defined in step 2 by obtaining an
earthquakes' classification scheme which is based on
mapping vulnerability.
In step 3 which is the immediate step before entering
into AHP, the introduced factors in the previous steps
are defined more clearly. These definitions result in
specialization of the factors into more detailed ones.
The detailed factors are categorized into the classification
scheme obtained. The categories aggregation is also
carried out to form final classes fed into the AHP
hierarchy.
The derived classes are arranged into a linear
hierarchical structure depict the classes inter and intra
relations. Then the routine AHP questionnaires and
computation of weight factors is carried out in step 5. The
proposed approach for AHP computation is deformation
of eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
The last step deals with calculation of consistency
index and consistency ratio. Also components of the
sensitivity analysis are defined in this step using gradient
sensitivity analysis method. This method is based on
observing the relative changes exerted onto the different
factors when just one of the factors varies. These
analyses are used for interpreting the uncertainty of the
observations and computations carried out over AHP
hierarchy.
Since some of the service evaluation criteria are
subjective and qualitative, it is very difficult for the
decision-maker to express the strength of his preferences
and to provide exact pair wise comparison judgments

( x a ) /(b a ) a x b

N% ( x) = (c x) /(c b) b x c

0
ortherwise

Table 1: Magnitude of importance for pair-wise comparison

Importance

Definition

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Equal Importance
Weak Importance
Moderate Importance
Moderate Plus
Strong Importance
Strong Plus
Very Strong
Very, Very Strong
Extreme Importance

Degree
Degree: 1

Membership function
0.5

Fuzzy variable
Degree: 0.5

Importance
a

Fig. 1: The sample of fuzzy membership function 7

68

World Appl. Sci. J., 3 (Supple 1): 66-72, 2008

Assuming that; a<b<c, each of the comparison

matrix element is considered as (lij, mij, uij) so that
lij<mij<uij. According to these relations and weights w
and wj, the membership function is:
wi
( w lij )
j
,
mij lij
wi
ij ( ) =
wj
(u wi )
ij w j
,

uij mij

wi
wj
wi
wj

C
i

mij

mij

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

C
The process described in the previous sections is
implemented for Tehran, the Capital of Iran. Iran has
experienced many earthquakes which some of them
created sever fatalities like the earthquake happened
in city of Bam in 2003. Besides, Tehran is also
located in a highly earthquake prone area bound by
three major faults. While, no significant earthquake
happened in Tehran for a long time, seismologists
predict that huge earthquakes are highly possible in
this city. Tehran is known as one of the most
earthquake vulnerable metropolitans in the Middle
East region and north of Africa. While this city seriously
sprawled horizontally during the last 50 years, it
is now rising out. It hosts more than 7 million populations
and also absorbs a great deal of migrants as about 93% of
annual 1% population growth in Tehran is due to
migration.
Despite various researches carried out to show the
danger of earthquake in Tehran during the last 30 years
and plans which are developed for earthquakes' damages
mitigation, lack of a comprehensive plan for urban
management caused failure of these activities. Then
applying more comprehensive researches is required
bridging this situation. The hypothesis and methodology
illustrated in the previous sections are used here for this
purpose. The methodology is defined for our case study
as follow:
C

Considering the selected factors, our research

focuses especially on people and buildings. Defining
the expected earthquake scenarios we take into
account the classification of both the vulnerability of
a structure like the materials, method of construction
and the degree of damage. This classification would
be the simplified version of the European macro
seismic scale for earthquake intensity which is
provided by European Seismological Commission
[Error! Reference source not found.]. The highest
level of the classification provided is obtained which
consists of three levels: a) light to moderate
earthquake; b) moderate to severe earthquake; c)
severe to destructive earthquake. Each of these
levels includes four detailed levels.
The effective factors selected under the structures
defined in the last two steps would be: a) building
stories (1-3, 4-15 and more than 15); b) Building's
structure type (weakly built or poorly constructed,
sturdy or masonry, well built or not reinforced, well
built and reinforced); c) Building's age (before 1966,
1966-1975 and 1976-2005); and d) resident population.
The hierarchical structure which depicts factors and
scenarios relationship is basis of our AHP
calculations shown in Figure 2.

In Figure 2, the fuzzy-AHP, the comparison matrixes

and weights are represented. At the first level of
hierarchical structure of earthquake scenarios, the
different scenarios such as A, B and C are comprised duo
to the higher level of decision making criteria with the
expert opinion and the magnitudes such as presented in
Tables 2 and 3. As it seen, the main diagonal of
comparison matrix is "1" which means equal importance of
each scenario duo to itself. The other elements are three
Table 2: Comparison matrix of earthquake scenarios for population criteria
Population

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario A

(1/6,1/7,1/8)

(1/9,1/8,1/7)

Scenario B

(6,7,8)

(1/2,1, 2)

Scenario C

(7,8,9)

(1/2, 1,2)

Table 3: Comparison matrix for the structure of building class

The simplification of the problem is carried out by

focusing on earthquake's fatalities. The social risk
factors fatalities and injuries are selected as basic
factors. Debris is also selected as the related physical
factor.

69

structure

Weak

Sturdy

Well Built

Very Well

Weak

(1,2, 3)

(2,3,4)

(3,4,5)

Sturdy

(1/3,1/2,1)

(1,2,3)

(2,3,4)

Well Built

(1/4,1/3,1/2)

(1/3,1/2,1)

(1,2,3)

Very Well

(1/5,1/4,1/3)

(1/5,1/3,1/2)

(1/3,1/2,1)

World Appl. Sci. J., 3 (Supple 1): 66-72, 2008

Earthquakes' Effects on
Fatality in Tehran

Building

Stories

1-3

E
A1
B2
C3

Structure

More
than
15

4-15

Resident Population

A1
B2
C3

Weakly
Built or
Poorly
Constructed
Building

A1
B2
C3

u
A1
B2
C3

Sturdy
Building or
Masonry
Structures

Age

Well Built or
Unreinforced
Structures

A1
B2
C3

Before
1966

Very Well
Built or
Reinforced
Structures

S
A1
B2
C3

A1
B2
C3

A1
B2
C3

19661975

19762005

A1
B2
C3

A1
B2
C3

A1
B2
C3

1: Light to Moderate of Earthquakes (I- IV)

2: Moderate to severe Earthquakes (V- VIII)
3: Severe to Destructive Earthquakes (IX- XII)

Fig. 2: Hierarchy of decision making for AHP

Table 4: Comparison matrix of vulnerability
Vulnerability

population

building

population

(1/6,1/5,1/4)

building

(4,5,6)

the integration is obtained through enhanced analysis.

The performance of it is grid-base. Figure 3 shows the
results of this procedure. As the seismic effect of Ray
fault is more than other faults, so in this paper we
concentrated on it.
Furthermore, the accuracy of classification for
vulnerability layer, due to the similarity of building
density layer to the other layers doesnt result in
imprecision of classification. Calculations of accuracy
for overlay and classification are based on Veregin
equations (The Boolean operator is "AND") as describe
below [18]:

Table 5: Fianl weights for three earthquake scenarios

Purpose

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Earthquake Vulnerability

0.079

0.351

0.57

Table 6: Fianl weights for three earthquake scenarios using fuzzy-AHP

Purpose

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Earthquake Vulnerability

0.063

0.417

0.520

P[ EC ] = P[ E1 I E2 I ... I En ]
n

P[E (E )]

= P[ E1 ] P[ E2 E1 ]

sequential values which are considered as triangular fuzzy

members and it shows the importance of scenario due to
the other criteria.
In the higher level the comparison matrix is such as
Table 4:
Applying the results of our approach relative weighs
is calculated according to Table 6 which the common
weighs of parameters are presented in Table 5.

i =1

( Ei ) = E1 I E2 I ... I Ei 1

P[ ECmin ] = max 0,(1

P[ ECmax ] =

P[E ]
i

i =1

min {P[ Ei ]} i = 1, 2,..., n

Ei is the percentage of cells which is classified correctly

for ith layer.
Ei is the percentage of cells which is classified
incorrectly for ith layer which is equal to 1 E .
i

Integration of Spatial Data: The integration of layers is

implemented in ArcGIS Software. In this way, different
grid data layers with 2525 cell size, is prepared and
70

World Appl. Sci. J., 3 (Supple 1): 66-72, 2008

Fig. 3: Zoning map of Seismic vulnerability duo to the Ray fault

Therefore, the mean accuracy of classification is
calculated 0.801 such as the least accuracy is estimated
0.79 and the most of it is calculated 0.89 through.

REFERENCES
1.

CONCLUSIONS
This research is part of an on going research for
mapping vulnerability of Tehran against earthquakes.
Considering the researches carried out for micro-seismic
analysis of Tehran, our results will be used to tie the
mentioned research to our expected vulnerability
mapping.
In this way, we implemented enhanced analytical
hierarchical approach for weighing vulnerability factors
and evaluation of their uncertainty through fuzzy logic.
The applied method is related to captured data and
analysis of them. The results shown that, this method
have a high level of consistency and stability. Finally, we
integrated different layers to achieve vulnerability map of
Tehran. The accuracy of overlay and classification is
calculated according to Veregin's equations. The future
works will be accomplished in order to improve the
available approach for assessment of earthquake
vulnerability in different scenarios.

2.

3.

4.

5.

71

Aghataher, R., M.R. Delavar and N. Kamalian,

2007. Weighing of Earthquakes' Vulnerability
Criteria in Tehran. Journal of University
College Engineering (Special issue on: Surveying
Engineering), University of Tehran, 40(8):
1033-1044.
Hillier, B., 2001. A theory of the city as object: How
spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban
space, proceeding of 3rd International Space Syntax
Symposium, Atlanta, USA.
Aghataher, R., M.R. Delavar and N. Kamalian,
2005. Weighing of Contributing Factors in
Vulnerability of Cities Against Earthquakes.
Proc. Map Asia Conference 2005, Jakarta, Indonesia,
pp: 22-25.
European Seismological Commission, 1993. European
Macro-seismic Scale, http://www.quakes.bgs.ac.uk/
hazard/ems1.htm.
Uitto, J.I., 1998. The Geography of Disaster
Vulnerability in Mega-cities, Applied Geography,
18(1): 7-16.

World Appl. Sci. J., 3 (Supple 1): 66-72, 2008

6.

Osorio, M., C. Zepeda, D. Sol and G. Lazzeri, 2004.

A Decision Support System for Disaster Situations.
In Research on Computing e-Environment: Progress
and Challenge, Mxico D.F. pp: 97- 116. (Eds.)
Paulicos Prastacos, Ulises Cortes, Juan Luis Daz de
Len and Manuel Murillo. Research on Computing
Science.
7. Lin, L., 2007. A fuzzy decision support for
selecting
the
facility site of multinational
enterprises, Intl. J. Innovative Computing,
Information and Control.
8. Omero, M., L. Castelli, R. Pesenti and W. Ukovich,
2002. Intelligent decision support system for
performance assessing and ranking: the evaluation of
air traffic control units, Proceedings of the EURO
Working Group on Fuzzy Set (EUROFUSE)
Workshop on Information Systems, Varenna (LC),
Italy, pp: 23-25.
9. Bood, R.P. and T.J.B.M. Postma, 1998. Scenario
Analysis as a Strategic Management Tool. In
Research Report Series of University of Groningen,
Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organizations and
Management),
http://www.ub.rug.nl/
eldoc/
som/b/98B05/.
10. Mikhailov, L. and P. Tsvetinov, 2004. Evaluation of
Services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,
Applied Soft Computing, 5(1): 23-33.

11. NERA, 2001. Multi-criteria analysis manual, National

Economic Research Associates, ODPM Publications.
12. Rashed, K. and J. Weeks, 2003. Assessing
vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial
multi-criteria analysis of urban areas, Intl. J.
Geographic Information Sci., 17(6): 547-576.
13. Simoes-Marques, M., R.A. Ribeiro and A. GameiroMarques ,2000. A Fuzzy Decision Support System for
Equipment Repair under Battle Conditions, Fuzzy
sets and systems, 115(1): 141-157.
14. Saaty, A., 1986. Axiomatic foundation of analytical
hierarchy process, Manage. Sci., 32(7): 841-855.
15. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process.
NY McGraw Hill.
16. Warren, L., 2004. Uncertainties in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process, DSTO Information Sciences
Laboratory, Australian Government, Department of
Defense, Defense Science and Technology
Organization.
17. Zhang, F., L. Xie and L. Fan, 2004. Study on
evaluation of cities' ability reducing earthquake
disasters, ACTA Seismologica SINICA Journal, 17(3):
349-361.
18. Veregin, H., 1989. Error modelling for the map overlay
operation. In Accuracy of spatial databases,
Goodchild and Gopal (ed), Taylor and Francis,
London, pp: 3-18.

72