The design of effective flood risk mitigation strategies and their subsequent implementation is crucial for sustainable development in mountain areas. The assessment of the dynamic evolution of flood risk is the pillar of any subsequent planning process that is targeted at a reduction of the expected adverse consequences of the hazard impact. This study focuses on riverbed cities, aiming to analyze flood occurrences and their influencing factors. Through an extensive literature review, five key criteria commonly associated with flood events were identified: slope height, distance from rivers, topographic index, and runoff height. Utilizing the network analysis process within Super Decision software, these factors were weighted, and a final flood risk map was generated using the simple weighted sum method. 75% of the data was used for training, and 25% of it was used for testing. Additionally, vegetation changes were assessed using Landsat imagery from 2000 and 2022 and the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). The focus of this research is Qirokarzin city as a case study of riverbed cities, situated in Fars province, with Qir city serving as its central hub. Key rivers in Qirokarzin city include the Qara Aghaj River, traversing the plain from north to south; the primary Mubarak Abad River, originating from the east; and the Dutulghaz River, which enters the eastern part of the plain from the southwest of Qir, contributing to plain nourishment during flood events. The innovation of this paper is that along with the objective to produce a reliable delineation of hazard zones, a functional distinction between the loading and the response system (LS and RS, respectively) is made. Results indicate the topographic index as the most influential criterion, delineating Qirokarzin city into five flood risk zones: very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. Notably, a substantial portion of Qirokarzin city (1849.8 square kilometers, 8.54% of the area) falls within high- to very-high flood risk zones. Weighting analysis reveals that the topographic humidity index and runoff height are the most influential criteria, with weights of 0.27 and 0.229, respectively. Conversely, the height criterion carries the least weight at 0.122. Notably, 46.7% of the study area exhibits high flood intensity, potentially attributed to variations in elevation and runoff height. Flood potential findings show that the middle class covers 32.3%, indicating moderate flood risk due to changes in elevation and runoff height. The low-level risk is observed sporadically from the east to the west of the study area, comprising 12.4%. Analysis of vegetation changes revealed a significant decline in forest and pasture cover despite agricultural and horticultural development, exacerbating flood susceptibility. 

1. Few R, Matthies F. Flood hazards and health: responding to present and future risks. Taylor & Francis; 2013.

2. Melo-Merino SM, Reyes-Bonilla H, Lira-Noriega A. Ecological niche models and species distribution models in marine environments: A literature review and spatial analysis of evidence. Ecological Modelling. 2020; 415: 108837. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108837

3. Guria R, Mishra M, Dutta S, et al. Remote sensing, GIS, and analytic hierarchy process-based delineation and sustainable management of potential groundwater zones: a case study of Jhargram district, West Bengal, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2023; 196(1). doi: 10.1007/s10661-023-12205-6

4. Sauquet E, Shanafield M, Hammond JC, et al. Classification and trends in intermittent river flow regimes in Australia, northwestern Europe and USA: A global perspective. Journal of Hydrology. 2021; 597: 126170. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126170

5. Oudin L, Salavati B, Furusho-Percot C, et al. Hydrological impacts of urbanization at the catchment scale. Journal of Hydrology. 2018; 559: 774–786. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.064

6. Yousefi H, Moradi S, Zahedi R, et al. Developed analytic hierarchy process and multi criteria decision support system for wind farm site selection using GIS: A regional-scale application with environmental responsibility. Energy Conversion and Management: X. 2024; 22: 100594. doi: 10.1016/j.ecmx.2024.100594

7. Chukwuma EC, Okonkwo CC, Ojediran JO, et al. A GIS based flood vulnerability modelling of Anambra State using an integrated IVFRN-DEMATEL-ANP model. Heliyon. 2021; 7(9): e08048. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08048

8. Zahedi R, Sadeghitabar E, Khazaee M, et al. Potentiometry of wind, solar and geothermal energy resources and their future perspectives in Iran. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-04633-2

9. Ghanbarpour MR, Saravi MM, Salimi S. Floodplain Inundation Analysis Combined with Contingent Valuation: Implications for Sustainable Flood Risk Management. Water Resources Management. 2014; 28(9): 2491–2505. doi: 10.1007/s11269-014-0622-2

10. Johnston R, Smakhtin V. Hydrological Modeling of Large river Basins: How Much is Enough? Water Resources Management. 2014; 28(10): 2695–2730. doi: 10.1007/s11269-014-0637-8

11. Tien Bui D, Khosravi K, Shahabi H, et al. Flood Spatial Modeling in Northern Iran Using Remote Sensing and GIS: A Comparison between Evidential Belief Functions and Its Ensemble with a Multivariate Logistic Regression Model. Remote Sensing. 2019; 11(13): 1589. doi: 10.3390/rs11131589

12. Qasimi AB, Isazade V, Enayat E, et al. Landslide susceptibility mapping in Badakhshan province, Afghanistan: a comparative study of machine learning algorithms. Geocarto International. 2023; 38(1). doi: 10.1080/10106049.2023.2248082

13. Koralay N, Kara Ö. Assessment of flood risk in Söğütlü stream watershed of Trabzon province in Turkey using geographic information systems and analytic hierarchy process approach. Natural Hazards. 2024; 120(11): 9977–10000. doi: 10.1007/s11069-024-06594-1

14. Estelaji F, Moniri N, Yari MH, et al. Earthquake, flood and resilience management through spatial planning, decision and information system. Future Technology. 2024; 3(2): 11–21. doi: 10.55670/fpll.futech.3.2.2

15. Khah MV, Zahedi R, Mousavi MS, et al. Forecasting renewable energy utilization by Iran’s water and wastewater industries. Utilities Policy. 2023; 82: 101546. doi: 10.1016/j.jup.2023.101546

16. Mehrzad K, Rahim Z, Reza F, et al. Potential assessment of renewable energy resources and their power plant capacities in Iran. Global Journal of Ecology. 2022; 7(2): 060–071. doi: 10.17352/gje.000062

17. Goodarzi MR, Niknam ARR, Sabaghzadeh M. Rainfall-runoff modeling using GIS: A case study of Gorganrood Watershed, Iran. Water Resource Modeling and Computational Technologies. 2022; 165–181. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-323-91910-4.00011-x

18. Taherizadeh M, Niknam A, Nguyen-Huy T, et al. Flash flood-risk areas zoning using integration of decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory, GIS-based analytic network process and satellite-derived information. Natural Hazards. 2023; 118(3): 2309–2335. doi: 10.1007/s11069-023-06089-5

19. Estelaji F, Aghajari AA, Zahedi R. Flood zoning and developing strategies to increase resilience against floods with a crisis management approach. Asian Review of Environmental and Earth Sciences. 2023; 10(1): 14–27. doi: 10.20448/arees.v10i1.4439

20. Estelaji F, Naseri A, Keshavarzzadeh M, et al. Potential measurement and spatial priorities determination for gas station construction using WLC and GIS. Future Technology. 2023; 2(4): 24–32. doi: 10.55670/fpll.futech.2.4.3

21. Estelaji F, Naseri A, Zahedi R. Evaluation of the Performance of Vital Services in Urban Crisis Management. Advances in Environmental and Engineering Research. 2022; 03(04): 1–19. doi: 10.21926/aeer.2204057

22. Mirzavand H, Aslani A, Zahedi R. Environmental impact and damage assessment of the natural gas pipeline: Case study of Iran. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2022; 164: 794–806. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2022.06.042

23. Pettorelli N. The normalized difference vegetation index. Oxford University Press; 2013.

24. Chemweno P, Pintelon L, Van Horenbeek A, et al. Development of a risk assessment selection methodology for asset maintenance decision making: An analytic network process (ANP) approach. International Journal of Production Economics. 2015; 170: 663–676. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.03.017

25. Dwyer L, Gill A, Seetaram N, et al. Handbook of research methods in tourism: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2012.

26. Teng J, Jakeman AJ, Vaze J, et al. Flood inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2017; 90: 201–216. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.006

27. Liu S, Wang Y, An Z, et al. Watershed spatial heterogeneity of soil saturated hydraulic conductivity as affected by landscape unit in the critical zone. CATENA. 2021; 203: 105322. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2021.105322

28. Ghorbani M, Ghaderi N, Estelaji F, et al. Evaluating Surface Water Collection Infrastructure for Management of Urban Flood Risk: Integrating HEC-RAS with GIS in Overland Flow Modeling and Flood Hazard Zone Mapping within the Kan River Watershed of Tehran. AGU24. https://agu.confex.com/agu/agu24/prelim.cgi/Paper/1594722

29. Murphy PNC, Ogilvie J, Arp P. Topographic modelling of soil moisture conditions: a comparison and verification of two models. European Journal of Soil Science. 2009; 60(1): 94–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01094.x

30. Estelaji F, Zahedi R, Gitifar A, et al. Integrating HEC-RAS, GIS, and LISREL for assessing and enhancing urban building resilience against flood threats: Comprehensive model and analysis. Heliyon. 2024; 10(20): e39463. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39463

31. Mishra SK, Singh VP. Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) Methodology. Springer Netherlands; 2003.

32. Young AF, Papini JA. How can scenarios on flood disaster risk support urban response? A case study in Campinas Metropolitan Area (São Paulo, Brazil). Sustainable Cities and Society. 2020; 61: 102253. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102253

33. Huang M, Gallichand J, Dong C, et al. Use of soil moisture data and curve number method for estimating runoff in the Loess Plateau of China. Hydrological Processes. 2006; 21(11): 1471–1481. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6312

34. Daly C, Halbleib M, Smith JI, et al. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. International Journal of Climatology. 2008; 28(15): 2031–2064. doi: 10.1002/joc.1688

35. Hu C, Wright AL, Lian G. Estimating the Spatial Distribution of Soil Properties Using Environmental Variables at a Catchment Scale in the Loess Hilly Area, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(3): 491. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16030491