SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT USING GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) WITH ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP): ESKİŞEHİR, TURKEY Suharto Sandayan ESMAEL MASTER OF SCIENCE Geographical Information System and Remote Sensing Prof. Dr. Can Ayday Eskişehir Anadolu University Science Institute January 2018 FINAL APPROVAL FOR THESIS This thesis titled “Seismic Risk Assessment Using Geographical Information System (GIS) with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): Eskişehir, Turkey” has been prepared and submitted by Suharto Sandayan Esmael in partial fulfillment of the requirements in “Anadolu University Directive on Graduate Education and Examination” for the Degree of Master of Science in Geographical Information System and Remote Sensing Department has been examined and approved on 03/01/2018 Committee Members Signature Member (Supervisor) : Prof. Dr. Can AYDAY _______________ Member : Prof. Dr. Gülgün YILMAZ _______________ Member : Assist. Prof. Dr. Hatice KUTLUK _______________ ___________________________ Director Graduate School of Science ÖZET Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi ile Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci Kullanarak Deprem Risk Değerlendirmesi: Eskişehir, Türkiye Suharto Sandayan ESMAEL Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemileri ve Uzaktan Algılama Anadolu Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ocak 2018 Danışman: Prof. Dr. Can AYDAY Bu çalışma, analitik hiyerarşi işleminin kullanıldığı coğrafi bilgi sistemi kullanılarak Türkiye’de Eskişehir ilinin sismik riskini değerlendirmeyi hedeflemektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, litoloji, fay hattı ve merkez üstü kriterleri göz önüne alınarak, Eskişehir’in hangi bölgelerinin depreme eğilimli olduğuna cevap bulmaya çalışmaktır. Çalışmadaki temel tartışmalarından bir diğeri, GIS ve AHP temel alınarak üç faktör arasında aynı sonucu veren risklerin hesaplanmasıdır. Çalışmanın sonucunda ilin Afet Risk Azaltma Yönetimi Programı için farklı öneriler ortaya çıkmıştır. İlki, litolojiye göre AHP yöntemi kullanılarak Çifteler ve Alpu ilçeleri en yüksek deprem sismik riskine sahip olduğunu ve GIS yönteminde ise en yüksek sismik riski Tepebaşı ilçesi göstemektedir. İkincisi, fay hattıya gore, AHP yöntemi kullanılarak en yüksek sismik risk Tepebaşı ilçesindedir. Diğer yandan GIS yöntemine dayalı olarak İnönü, Mihalgazi, Tepebaşı, ve Sarıcakaya en yüksek sismik risk göstermiştir. Üçüncüsü, merkez üssü temel dayanarak AHP yönteminde diğer faktörler gibi en yüksek sismik risk yine Tepebaşı ilçesindedir ve GIS yönteminde ise İnönü, Sarıcakaya, ve Alpu ilçesindedir. Dördüncüsü, üç senaryo kullanılarak Tepabaşı ve İnönü ilçelerinin Eskişehir ilinde en yüksek depremselliğe sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Son olarak, GIS ve AHP yöntemine dayalı olarak, üç senaryoden elde edilen sonuç, Tepebaşı ilçesinde benzer bir sismik risk oluşturmaktadır. Anahtar kelimeler: Deprem Riski, Ağırlık Analizi, Analitik Hiyerarşik İşlem, Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri iii ABSTRACT Seismic Risk Assessment Using Geographical Information System (GIS) with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): Eskişehir, Turkey Suharto Sandayan ESMAEL Geographical Information System and Remote Sensing Anadolu University, Graduate School of Science, January 2018 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Can AYDAY This study aimed to assess the seismic risk using geographical information system with the used of Analytic hierarchy process in the province of Eskişehir, Turkey. Specifically, this paper sought to answer which area in the province of Eskişehir is highly prone to earthquake based on lithology, fault lines, and epicenter. Based on the three criteria, which area of the province is highly prone to earthquake. Lastly, based on GIS and AHP, which among these three factors produce the same result of computation of risks. The result of the study creates different suggestions for the Disaster Risk Reduction Management Program of the province. First, based from lithology, the result in AHP method shows that the district of Çifteler and Alpu has the highest risk of earthquake seismicity while the result of GIS method shows that the district of Tepebaşı has the highest risk of seismicity in Eskişehir province. Second, based from fault lines, the result in AHP method shows that Tepebaşı has the highest risk of seismicity while based on GIS method, the district of İnönü, Mihalgazi, Tepebaşı, and Sarıcakaya has the highest risk of seismicity. Third, based on epicenter, the result in AHP method shows that Tepebaşı has the highest risk of seismicity while based on GIS method, the result shows that İnönü, Sarıcakaya, and Alpu has the highest rate of seismicity. Fourth, using the three scenarios, the result shows that the district of Tepebaşı and İnönü has the highest rate of seismicity in the province of Eskişehir. And lastly, based on GIS and AHP method, the result from scenario three produce a similar seismic risk in the district of Tepebaşı. Keywords: Seismic Risk, Weighting Analysis, Analytic Hierarchical Process, Geographic Information Systems iv STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES I hereby truthfully declare that this thesis is an original work prepared by me; that I have behaved in accordance with the scientific ethical principles and rules throughout the stages of preparation, data collection, analysis, and presentation of my work; that I have cited the sources of all the data and information that could be obtained within the scope of this study, and included these sources in the references section; and that this study has been scanned for plagiarism with “scientific plagiarism detection program” used by Anadolu University, and that “it does not have any plagiarism” whatsoever. I also declare that, if a case contrary to my declaration is detected in my work at any time, I hereby express my consent to all the ethical and legal consequences that are involved. Suharto Sandayan Esmael v DEDICATION To my beloved family who never stops believing me to achieve all my dreams. And most especially, to ALLAH (s.w.a) who gives me the opportunity to achieve who am I and what I have today. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I genuinely appreciate the endless effort and support from my beloved family to complete my studies. To my mother, Saimona Sandayan Esmael, thank you for always lifting my spirit and emotion whenever I feel down, and also being my inspiration at all time. To my Father, Abduladzis Mohammad Esmael, he is always my great hero, he taught me to love my own Bangsa (Identity) and my homeland with his action and sacrifices, which the reason I decided to take this master degree. To my brothers and sister, Normina, Nasrullah, Khalid, Noraisa, Zuhair, Mohaimen, Jasmina, and Abduljabar, thank you for the tremendous support and showing no doubts with my chosen path. To all my friends from Philippines, Turkey, and from other part of the globe, thank you very much for trusting me. To Barjunaid Cadir, Asraph Omar, and Rahib Kadil, I owe a lot of things from them, not just for supporting me in my studies but also for taking good care of me when the time of sickness. To our Organization, Moro International Students, thank you for the experience and learning you have imparted to each of us. Great appreciation to my adviser Dr. Prof. Can Ayday for sharing his time even with his hectic schedule and his uncountable assistance with his expertise during the writing this thesis. And to his officemates who shared their professional knowledge to improve this thesis. for proving (هللا) Above all, my most enormous gratitude to the Almighty Allah this opportunity and meet people who helped me through the process of this thesis. Thank you, Ya Allah, for letting me experience and learn whatever I learned throughout my journey. Suharto Sandayan ESMAEL vii TABLE OF CONTENT Page TITLE PAGE . i FINAL APPROVAL FOR THESIS . ii ÖZET . iii ABSTRACT . iv STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES . v DEDICATION . vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. vii TABLE OF CONTENT . viii LIST OF TABLES . xi LIST OF FIGURES . xii SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS . xiv 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 1.1. Problem Statement . 2 1.2. Purpose of the Study . 3 1.3. Scope and Delimitation . 4 1.4. The Study Area . 5 2. PREVIOUS WORKS . 8 viii Page 3. METHODOLOGY . 11 3.1. GIS . 11 3.1.1. Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) Interpolation of epicenter . 12 3.1.2. Rasterization and reclassification of lithology . 16 3.1.3. Multiple ring buffer on fault line . 20 3.1.4. Weighting analysis according to three scenario . 22 3.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) . 23 3.3. Comparison of GIS and AHP Results . 26 4. GEOLOGY . 27 4.1. Lithology . 27 4.2. Fault Line . 29 4.3. Epicenter . 29 5. ANALYSIS . 31 5.1. GIS Tools Analysis . 31 5.1.1. Application of Inverse Distance Weighting Interpolation . 32 5.1.2. Application of multiple ring buffer . 34 5.1.3. Application of weighted overlay . 36 5.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) . 41 5.2.1. Computation of criteria weights . 41 5.2.2. Computation of alternative weights . 44 5.2.3. Computation of AHP final result . 48 5.3. Comparison of GIS and AHP Result . 52 ix Page 5.3.1. GIS and AHP results from scenario one . 52 5.3.2. GIS and AHP results from scenario two . 53 5.3.3. GIS and AHP results from scenario three . 53 6. RESULT AND DISCUSSION . 55 7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . 59 REFERENCES . 61 RÉSUMÉ x LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3.1. Richter Scale and Mercalli Intensity Scale . 15 Table 3.2. Seismic risk scale . 22 Table 3.3. Three scenarios with different priority scale . 23 Table 5.1. Criteria weight value from scenario one including its percentage value . 42 Table 5.2. Criteria weight value from scenario two including its percentage value . 43 Table 5.3. Criteria weight value from scenario three including its percentage value . 43 Table 5.4. Alternatives weight value according to fault line . 45 Table 5.5. Alternatives weight value according to alluvium . 46 Table 5.6. Alternatives weight value according to epicenter . 47 Table 5.7. The AHP final result according to scenario one . 49 Table 5.8. The AHP final result according to scenario two . 50 Table 5.9. The AHP final result according to scenario three . 51 xi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1. Eskişehir Province, Turkey . 5 Figure 1.2. Earthquake zoning map of Turkey.