Spatial Modeling of Anthropogenic Forest Fire Risk from a Landscape Planning Perspective: Comparison of Expert-Based MCDM and Machine Learning Approaches in Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye
Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Landscape Architecture, Hatay, Türkiye
Abstract
Forest fires cause significant environmental and socioeconomic losses, particularly in regions where human activities are concentrated. This study aims to spatially model anthropogenic forest fire risk in Kahramanmaraş Province using expert-based multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) and machine learning approaches, and to evaluate the results from a landscape planning perspective. Anthropogenic factors identified through the Delphi technique based on expert opinions were used in the study. Within the scope of the MCDM approaches, AHP and SIMOS techniques were applied, and the resulting criterion weights were integrated using the BORDA method to generate risk maps through Weighted Overlay and Map Algebra approaches. Within the scope of the machine learning models, Random Forest (RF) and XGBoost algorithms were employed. SHAP analysis was conducted to enhance the interpretability of the models. The findings indicate that anthropogenic factors such as power lines, population density, and proximity to settlements play a determining role in the spatial distribution of forest fire risk. The RF and XGBoost models achieved accuracy values of 90% and 89%, respectively, and produced similar spatial risk distributions. Similarly, the risk maps obtained from the MCDM techniques also showed consistent results in terms of general spatial patterns. Although some local differences were observed between the MCDM and machine learning approaches, all modelling techniques revealed similar spatial trends, demonstrating the determining influence of anthropogenic factors on forest fire risk in the study area. This study provides an applicable methodological framework for developing risk-oriented landscape planning and land-use decisions.
Keywords
Forest fire risk assessment,Multi-criteria decision-making,Machine learning,Landscape planning
How to Cite
YİĞİT UZUNALİ, Şeyma. (2026). Spatial Modeling of Anthropogenic Forest Fire Risk from a Landscape Planning Perspective: Comparison of Expert-Based MCDM and Machine Learning Approaches in Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye. MAS Journal of Applied Sciences, 11(3), 664–686. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21346163
📄Ameyaw, E.E., Chan, A.P., 2016. A fuzzy approach for the allocation of risks in public–private partnership water-infrastructure projects in developing countries. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 22(3): 04016016.
📄Angra, S., Ahuja, S., 2017. Machine learning and its applications: A review. International Conference on Big Data Analytics and Computational Intelligence, Conference Proceedings Book, Chirala, Andhra Pradesh, India, pp. 57–60.
📄Anonymous, 2025. Turkish State Meteorological Service (MGM), 2025. Climate data. (https://www.mgm.gov.tr/) (Accessed:15.05.2026).
📄Belihu, K.T., Woldesenbet, A.K., Shiferaw, A.T., Wubet, W.A., Taffese, W.Z., 2026. Barriers to the implementation of cost risk management in construction projects: The Delphi technique. Eng, 7(2): 79.
📄Bentéjac, C., Csörgő, A., Martínez-Muñoz, G., 2021. A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms. Artificial Intelligence Review, 54(3): 1937-1967.
📄Bhattacharya, O., Sinha, S., Mishra, V.N., Kumari, M., Hasher, F.F., Barman, J., Zhran, M., 2025. Harnessing geospatial tools to map the forest fire: Risk zonation in Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. Results in Engineering, 25: 103694.
📄Bilucan, F., Teke, A., Kavzoglu, T., 2022. Susceptibility mapping of wildfires using XGBoost, Random Forest and AdaBoost: A case study of Mediterranean ecosystem. International Conference on Mediterranean Geosciences Union, Conference Proceedings Book, Marrakesh, Morocco, pp. 99–101.
📄Bowman, D.M., Balch, J.K., Artaxo, P., Bond, W.J., Carlson, J.M., Cochrane, M.A., Pyne, S.J., 2009. Fire in the Earth System. Science, 324(5926): 481-484.
📄Breiman, L., 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45 (1): 5–32.
📄Chen, T., Guestrin, C., 2016. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Conference Proceedings Book, San Francisco, USA, pp. 785–794.
📄Cutler, D.R., Edwards Jr, T.C., Beard, K.H., Cutler, A., Hess, K.T., Gibson, J., Lawler, J. J., 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology, 88(11): 2783-2792.
📄Emerson, P., 2013. The original Borda count and partial voting. Social Choice and Welfare, 40(2): 353-358.
📄Figueira, J., Roy, B., 2002. Determining the weights of criteria in the Electre Type Methods with a revised Simos procedure. European Journal of Operational Research, 139: 317–326.
📄Franc, J.M., Hung, K.K., Pirisi, A., Weinstein, E.S., 2023. Analysis of Delphi study 7-point linear scale data by parametric methods: use of the mean and standard deviation. Methodological Innovations, 16(2): 226-233.
📄Gürbüz, M., 2014. Geographical features of Kahramanmaraş province. Kahramanmaraş, the Golden City of the Mediterranean. Kahramanmaraş Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism, Kahramanmaraş, pp. 95–122. (https://kahramanmaras.ktb.go v.tr/Eklenti /37089,akdenizin-altin-kenti-kahramanma ras-32-mb.pdf?0) (Accessed: 26.05.2026).
📄Hai, J., Zhang, L., Gao, C., Wang, H., Wu, J., 2023. How does fire suppression alter the wildfire regime? A systematic review. Fire, 6(11): 424.
📄Jaafari, A., Zenner, E.K., Panahi, M., Shahabi, H., 2019. Hybrid artificial intelligence models based on a neuro-fuzzy system and metaheuristic optimization algorithms for spatial prediction of wildfire probability. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 266: 198-207.
📄Jain, P., Coogan, S.C., Subramanian, S.G., Crowley, M., Taylor, S., Flannigan, M.D., 2020. A review of machine learning applications in wildfire science and management. Environmental Reviews, 28(4): 478-505.
📄Jaiswal, R.K., Mukherjee, S., Raju, K.D., Saxena, R., 2002. Forest fire risk zone mapping from satellite imagery and GIS. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 4(1): 1-10.
📄Knorr, W., Arneth, A., Jiang, L., 2016. Demographic controls of future global fire risk. Nature Climate Change, 6(8): 781-785.
📄Kolanek, A., Szymanowski, M., Raczyk, A., 2021. Human activity affects forest fires: The impact of anthropogenic factors on the density of forest fires in Poland. Forests, 12(6): 728.
📄Lundberg, S.M., Lee, S.I., 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In I. Guyon, U. von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (pp. 4765–4774). Curran Associates, Inc.
📄Macmillan, T.T., 1971. The Delphi Technique. Annual Meeting of the California Junior Colleges Associations Committee on Research and Development, Conference Proceedings Book, Monterey, CA, USA, pp. 1-5.
📄Malczewski, J., 2006. GIS‐based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(7): 703-726.
📄Malczewski, J., Rinner, C., 2015. Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science. Springer.
📄Masoudian, E., Mirzaei, A., Bagheri, H., 2025. Assessing wildfire susceptibility in Iran: Leveraging machine learning for geospatial analysis of climatic and anthropogenic factors. Trees, Forests and People, 19: 100774.
📄Moritz, M.A., Batllori, E., Bradstock, R.A., Gill, A.M., Handmer, J., Hessburg, P.F., Syphard, A.D., 2014. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature, 515 (7525): 58-66.
📄Olden, J.D., Lawler, J.J., Poff, N.L., 2008. Machine learning methods without tears: a primer for ecologists. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 83(2): 171-193.
📄Orouskhani, M., Teshnehlab, M., Nekoui, M.A., 2019. Evolutionary dynamic multi- objective optimization algorithm based on Borda count method. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 10: 1931–1959.
📄Rodriguez-Galiano, V.F., Ghimire, B., Rogan, J., Chica-Olmo, M., Rigol-Sanchez, J.P., 2012. An assessment of the effectiveness of a random forest classifier for land-cover classification. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 67: 93-104.
📄Saari, D.G., 1995. Basic geometry of voting. Springer Science & Business Media.
📄Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
📄Sayarshad, H. R., Ghorbanloo, R., 2023. Evaluating the resilience of electrical power line outages caused by wildfires. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 240: 109588.
📄Shatri, H., Alwi, I., Ismail, R.I., Herqutanto, H., Yuniarti, K.W., Soewondo, P., Suwarto, S., 2022. Supportive psychotherapy for healthcare professionals in the management of acute coronary syndrome: The use of Delphi technique. Acta Medica Indonesiana, 54 (2): 218–237.
📄Sumsion, T., 1998. The Delphi technique: An adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4): 153-156.
📄Şahan, E.A., Gürçay, B., Güner, H.T., 2023. The history of fire, human and climate in black pine forests of western Anatolia: The Taurus mountains. Dendrochronologia, 82: 126149.
📄Şahin, A.E., 2009. The State of Elementary Principalship as a Profession in Turkey: A Delphi Study. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 26(26): 125-136.
📄Thangaratinam, S., Redman, C.W., 2005. The Delphi technique. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, 7(2): 120-125.
📄Uthappa, A.R., Das, B., Raizada, A., Kumar, P., Jha, P., Prasad, P.V., 2025. Forest fire susceptibility mapping using multi-criteria decision making and machine learning models in the Western Ghats of India. Journal of Environmental Management, 379: 124777.
📄Vujović, F., Grozdanić, G., Đurović, R., Valjarević, A., Milevski, I., 2025. Comparative assessment of GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis (AHP) and machine learning (MaxEnt) approaches for wildfire susceptibility modeling in Montenegro. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences, 28(4): 724-736.
📄Wei, G., Han, G.S., Lang, X., 2026. Fire risk assessment using machine learning techniques: A case study of Jinan City, China. Scientific Reports, 16: 6410.
📄Wu, H., Fu, C., Zhang, L., Wu, H., 2022. Elevated wildfire and ecosystem carbon loss risks due to plant hydraulic stress functions: A Global Modeling Perspective. Fire, 5(6): 187.
📄Xu, Z., Li, J., Cheng, S., Rui, X., Zhao, Y., He, H., Xu, L.L., 2025. Deep learning for wildfire risk prediction: Integrating remote sensing and environmental data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 227: 632-677.
📄Zhang, J., Ma, X., Zhang, J., Sun, D., Zhou, X., Mi, C., Wen, H., 2023. Insights into geospatial heterogeneity of landslide susceptibility based on the SHAP-XGBoost model. Journal of Environmental Management, 332: 117357.