Table 4.
SETS variables their abbreviation (Abb.), unit, classes, flood susceptibility, rating values, and weight.
| No | Variables | Abbreviation | Unit | Class | Flood susceptibility | Susceptibility rating | Weight (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Total population count | PT | total number of people per grid-cell | 0.45–8.73 | Very low | 1 | 6.08 |
| 8.73–35.36 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 35.36–74.40 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 74.40–109.31 | High | 4 | |||||
| 109.31–151.39 | Very high | 5 | |||||
| 2 | Population density | PD | # of people/area | 57 - 1323 | Very low | 1 | 6.77 |
| 1323 - 4208 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 4208 - 8289 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 8289 - 12,792 | High | 4 | |||||
| 12,792 - 17,999 | Very high | 5 | |||||
| 3 | Percentage of children <5 years | PC | % | 0.04–0.25 | Very low | 1 | 6.64 |
| 0.25–0.58 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 0.58–1.00 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 1.00–1.43 | High | 4 | |||||
| 1.43–2.25 | Very high | 5 | |||||
| 4 | Percentage of the population over 65 years | PO | % | 0.02–0.12 | Very low | 1 | 6.13 |
| 0.12–0.30 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 0.30–0.52 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 0.52–0.75 | High | 4 | |||||
| 0.75–1.17 | Very high | 5 | |||||
| 5 | Percentage of women | PW | % | 0.0094–0.062 | Very low | 1 | 6.70 |
| 0.063–0.15 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 0.16–0.26 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 0.27–0.38 | High | 4 | |||||
| 0.39–0.59 | Very high | 5 | |||||
| 6 | Percentage of unemployed people | PU | % | 0.03–0.15 | Very low | 1 | 6.25 |
| 0.15–4.22 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 4.22–11.49 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 11.49–18.26 | High | 4 | |||||
| 18.26–31.45 | Very high | 5 | |||||
| 7 | Slope variation | S | % | 0–3.14 | Very high | 5 | 8.49 |
| 3.14–7.12 | High | 4 | |||||
| 7.12–13.21 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 13.21–22.21 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 22.22–53.42 | Very low | 1 | |||||
| 8 | The proximity of the ecosystem to toxic release sites | PE | Level | 1–3 | Very low | 1 | 7.04 |
| 3–4 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 4–5 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 5–6 | High | 4 | |||||
| 6–7 | Very high | 5 | |||||
| 9 | Combination of shape index and average patch size | SIPS | Area(m2) | 0.0034–22.77 | Very high | 5 | 6.78 |
| 22.77–50.90 | High | 4 | |||||
| 50.91–99.13 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 99.13–136.64 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 136.65–341.61 | Very low | 1 | |||||
| 10 | Percentage of bare soil within the area | BS | % | 2.32 | Very high | 5 | 5.49 |
| 11 | Percentage of wetlands within the area | W | % | 0.83 | Very low | 1 | 5.32 |
| 12 | Productivity based on Normalized Difference in Vegetation Index (NDVI) | PNDVI | Level | −0.16–0.098 | Very high | 5 | 4.35 |
| 0.099–0.13 | High | 4 | |||||
| 0.14–0.16 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 0.17–0.23 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 0.24–0.46 | Very low | 1 | |||||
| 13 | Building area (percentage of building area within the area) | BA | % | 25.50 | High | 4 | 4.36 |
| 14 | Critical infrastructure (CI) (wastewater, polluted industries, gas terminal) in the area | CI | Meter(m) | <100 | Very high | 5 | 4.38 |
| 100–500 | High | 4 | |||||
| 500 - 1000 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 1000–3000 | Low | 2 | |||||
| >3000 | Very low | 1 | |||||
| 15 | Road density | RD | Length of road/area | 0–2.07 | Very low | 1 | 4.21 |
| 2.07–6.31 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 6.31–12.86 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 12.87–19.41 | High | 4 | |||||
| 19.41–29.28 | Very high | 5 | |||||
| 16 | Fractional Impervious surface | FIS | % | −0.0000012–0.61 | Very low | 1 | 3.49 |
| 0.62–0.77 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 0.78–0.87 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 0.88–0.92 | High | 4 | |||||
| 0.93–1 | Very high | 5 | |||||
| 17 | Green Infrastructure (GI) density | GI | Number of GI/area | 0–26.57 | Very high | 5 | 3.46 |
| 26.57–75.64 | High | 4 | |||||
| 75.64–145.15 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 145.16–265.77 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 265.78–521.31 | Very low | 1 | |||||
| 18 | Emergency centers (distance of emergency centers (e.g., hospitals, schools, community centers)) | EC | Meter (m) | <500 | Very low | 1 | 4.05 |
| 500–1500 | Low | 2 | |||||
| 1500–2500 | Medium | 3 | |||||
| 2500–5000 | High | 4 | |||||
| >5000 | Very high | 5 | |||||
| Total | 100.00 | ||||||
Table 4 shows the SET variables, unit, classes, susceptibility, rating values, and weight. The AHP model utilized the pair-wise comparison matrix (shown in Table 5) to determine the prioritization of these factors, with each factor's weight represented as a percentage value ranging from 0 to 100 %. The weight and ranking of each factor were calculated by employing both the pair-wise comparison matrix and the factor map. The weight value assigned to each factor indicated its prioritization and was expressed as a percentage value between 0 and 100 %. The sum of all weights equaled 100 % due to the use of a linear weighted combination.