IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI)

Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2020, pp. 73~80

ISSN: 2252-8938, DOI: 10.11591/ijai.v9.i1.pp73-80  73

Machine learning approach for flood risks prediction

Nazim Razali1, Shuhaida Ismail2, Aida Mustapha3

1,3Faculty
of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Batu
Pahat, Johor, Malaysia.
2Faculty of Applied Sciences and Technology, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Flood is one of main natural disaster that happens all around the globe caused
law of nature. It has caused vast destruction of huge amount of properties,
Received Aug 20, 2019 livestock and even loss of life. Therefore, the needs to develop an accurate
Revised Nov 28, 2019 and efficient flood risk prediction as an early warning system is highly
Accepted Dec 16, 2019 essential. This study aims to develop a predictive modelling follow Cross-
Industry Standard Process for Data Mining (CRISP-DM) methodology by
using Bayesian network (BN) and other Machine Learning (ML) techniques
Keywords: such as Decision Tree (DT), k-Nearest Neighbours (kNN) and Support
Vector Machine (SVM) for flood risks prediction in Kuala Krai, Kelantan,
Bayesian Network Malaysia. The data is sourced from 5-year period between 2012 until 2016
Decision Tree consisting 1,827 observations. The performance of each models were
Flood Prediction compared in terms of accuracy, precision, recall and f-measure. The results
k-Nearest Neighbour showed that DT with SMOTE method performed the best compared to others
Support Vector Machine by achieving 99.92% accuracy. Also, SMOTE method is found highly
effective in dealing with imbalance dataset. Thus, it is hoped that the finding
of this research may assist the non-government or government organization
to take preventive action on flood phenomenon that commonly occurs in
Malaysia due to the wet climate.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Shuhaida Ismail,
Faculty of Applied Sciences and Technology,
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia,
86400 Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia.
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Flood is the most common natural disaster that happened all around the world. Countries that
experience flood event need to face a huge of amount property destruction, environmental and financial
losses even fatalities among the citizen. There are several impactful factors that affect the inconsistency flood
occurrence such as temperature, humidity, dew point temperature, wind speed, streamflow volume, water
level and rainfall volume. The streamflow volume indicates the river capability in holding the water in order
to sustain the rainfall volume. Higher temperature and wind speed resulted in faster water particles moves,
thus easier to evaporate into the atmosphere. Humidity also affects the water particle in the air to be
condensed out of the atmosphere. Previous studies on flood detection has been done due to disastrous event
occur in countries such as in disastrous flood event occur in Australia [1], Malaysia [2], India [3] and many
other countries. Malaysia located geographically near the equatorial line which prevent it from severe natural
disaster phenomenon such as earthquakes, volcanic eruption and typhoons. However, Malaysia experience
hot and humid weather by average daily temperature of 21°C to 32°C throughout the year since Malaysia
influenced heavily by equatorial line.

Journal homepage: http://ijai.iaescore.com

74  ISSN: 2252-8938

In addition, Malaysia also experience climate changes of north eastern monsoon from November to
March and the western monsoon from June to October. Due to monsoon season, the annual rainfall in
Malaysia quite high by 2500 mm in Peninsular Malaysia, 2300 mm in Sarawak and 3300 mm in Sabah.
However, monsoon in Peninsular Malaysia contributes 86% from the annual rainfall in east coast of Malaysia
consisting the states of Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang. The heavy rainfall usually resulted in flood
whether natural or flash flood. For instance, the disastrous flood event occurred in 2014 [4] has given
important lesson of having flood prediction system to monitor, predict, and detect the flood event. In order to
reduce such damages, an early issued flood warning is essential. Thus, water level forecasting is essential to
predict future flood occurrence. Water level prediction also benefits other sectors such as agriculture, plants,
domestics and industrial and commercial [5]. The aim of this research paper is to develop a predictive
modelling which follow Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining (CRISP-DM) methodology by
using Bayesian network (BN) and other Machine Learning (ML) techniques such as Decision Tree (DT), k-
Nearest Neighbours (kNN) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) for flood risks prediction in Kuala Krai,
Kelantan, Malaysia. The remaining of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews all works related
to techniques used for flood risk prediction. Section 3 presents the data mining methodology as well as
dataset pre-processing, experimental setup, and the evaluation metrics. Section 4 presents the results and
finally Section 5 concludes with some directions for future work.

2. RELATED WORK
Application of BN and other ML techniques in prediction and classification has been used widely in
many field including agriculture, economy, and etc in Malaysia. [6] Used ML techniques such as an Artificial
Neural Network (ANN), K-Nearest Neighbours (kNN), Decision Table (DT) and M5P Tree algorithms in
their research to classify herbs for agriculture industry in Malaysia since this industry is crucial to assist the
economy development of Malaysia as one of leading exporter of herbs. Meanwhile, [7] has proposed new
Halal technologies using ML technique to facilitate the Muslim consumers in Malaysia to authenticate the
Halal logo image not just locally but also globally as long it were recognised by the Malaysian’s Department
of Islamic Development (JAKIM). However, recent work of application of BN and ML techniques have been
used widely focusing on natural disaster detection such as flood risks detection.
In 2018, [2] has carried out research on predicting flood risks using Bayesian approaches. They
conducted experiment using three Bayesian classifier algorithms namely general Bayesian Networks, naive
Bayes and Tree Augmented Naive Bayes to predict the flood risks in Kuala Krai, Kelantan, Malaysia for 5-
years. The results showed that general Bayesian Networks successfully outperformed both Naive Bayes and
tree augmented naive Bayes in term of accuracy. This paper has been used as our anchor paper to conduct
further research by comparing Bayesian network (BN) with other ML techniques such as Decision Tree
(DT), k-Nearest Neighbours (kNN) and Support Vector Machine (SVM). [8] Proposed an early prediction
system using Autoregressive Neural Networks with Exogenous Input (NNARX) for 5-hour ahead for flood.
Water level and rainfall for various stations located in Kelantan, Malaysia were observed. The performance
of proposed NNARX were compared with conventional Neural Network for prediction performance. The
results showed that NNARX has smallest value of Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) compared to
conventional Neural Networks. Besides, [9] also focusing on flood event in Kelantan, Malaysia. They
proposed Spiking Neural Network to predict the flood risk event. Meanwhile, [10] has introduced a semi-
supervised ML model, which is Weakly Labelled SVM (WELLSVM)to predict urban flood based on data
samples collected from urban areas in Beijing for 10-year between 2004 to 2014. The samples consisted of
nine dominant factors of metrological, geographical and anthropogenic. The model were then evaluated and
compared with other two model built from Logistic Regression and Artificial Neural Networks in terms of
accuracy, precision, recall and f-score. The results showed that WELLSVM flood successfully outperformed
both models because WELLSVM has the advantage in utilizing the unlabelled data.
In some other cases, [11] proposed a model based on ensemble classifier for more precise water
flooded layer recognition which means the target classes are divided into four target classes, which are the oil
layer, weak water flooded, middle water flooded and strong water flooded. Interestingly, this model was used
to predict the water flooded layer in oil or gas reservoir. The ensemble classifier were made up of the model-
free classification (MFBC) algorithm, the k-Nearest Neighbours (kNN) algorithm and the Support Vector
Machine (SVM) algorithm which were then validated and evaluated. The dataset went through oversampling
process using Synthetic Minority Over sampling Technique (SMOTE) due to imbalance classes. The results
showed that the ensemble classifier performed better as compared to MFBC, KNN and SVM for both UCI
data and chromatogram data while all three MFBC, KNN and SVM were similar in accuracy for 90% and
70.59% respectively. Finally, the destructive flood event at Australia in 2011 has urged [1] to use two ML
approaches; DT and SVM to evaluate spatial correlations between the contributing factors to flood and rate

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2020: 73 – 80

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  75

the factors according to their importance in mapping the flood prone areas. The results showed that DT was
slightly better in accuracy as compared to SVM whereby DT achieved 89% and SVM achieved 87% in the
first dataset and low in accuracy as compared to SVM in the second dataset by DT (89%) and SVM (87%)
respectively.

3. RESEARCH METHOD
This project adopted the Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining (CRISP-DM) [12]. This
methodology divided data mining task into six phases as shown in Figure 1. The six phases comprises of
business understanding, data understanding, data preparation, modelling, evaluation and deployment. This
CRISP-DM has become a benchmark or standard methodology to be follow in data mining task project
completion. Each of the phases in CRISP-DM will produce output that benefits the flow of data mining
project as whole. It make the project more flexible and efficient to solve business issues using analytics.
Table 1 described in brief the six major steps in CRISP-DM.

Table 1. CRISP-DM methodology

CRISP-DM Description
steps
1. Business Focuses on understanding the research objectives
Understanding and requirements, and then converting this
knowledge into a data mining problem definition.
2. Data Focuses on data collection, and proceed with
Understanding investigating and studying the data to identify
data quality problems, to discover first insights
into the data, or to detect interesting subsets to
form hypotheses for hidden information.
3. Data The data preparation phase or also known as data
Preparation preprocessing covers all activities to construct
the final dataset from the initial raw data and to
ensure the data be used is improved in quality
and acceptable before modelling phase. Include
cleansing, transformation, discretization,
reduction and feature engineering.
4. Modeling Modelling techniques such as machine learning
algorithms are selected and applied. Can be loop
back to data preparation phase accordingly to
suitability of datasets with applied algorithms
5. Evaluation Focuses on evaluate and validate the models that
have been built for measuring the quality and
performance of the models considering the
Figure 1. CRISP-DM methodology [12].
objectives and requirements. The model which
successfully obtained the highest quality and
performance will be selected as end product.
6. Deployment This last phase is to deploy the end product to be
applied in real world situation.

3.1. Dataset
All the dataset were extracted from [13-14] which are 5 year period records of flood data in Kuala
Krai, Kelantan, Malaysia between 1st January 2012 until 31st December 2016 consisting of 1,827 instances
and 8 features including date, rainfall monthly, rainfall daily, water level, humidity, wind and the binary
target class whether flood or not which are correspond features for flood risks prediction. Note that ’date’
feature were not included in the experimental process since it contain unique value for each instances which
not gave any significant impact to learning process. The part of sample data accordingly to the features are
shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Excerpt of kuala krai flood data for 5 year period

Date Level (cm) RF Month (mm) RF Daily (mm) Temperature (?C) Humidity (%) Wind (m/s) class
01/01/12 1871 1057 45 24.2 92.8 0.7 NOFLOOD
01/02/12 1911 1058 1 24.1 92.8 0.6 NOFLOOD
01/03/12 1799 1064 6 24.7 91.2 0.7 NOFLOOD
01/04/12 1763 1064 0 25 82.8 0.9 NOFLOOD
01/05/12 1738 1064 0 24.3 83.7 1 NOFLOOD
01/06/12 1721 1064 0 24.6 80.5 0.9 NOFLOOD

Machine learning approach for flood risks prediction (Nazim Razali)

76  ISSN: 2252-8938

Table 2. Excerpt of kuala krai flood data for 5 year period (Continue)
Date Level (cm) RF Month (mm) RF Daily (mm) Temperature (?C) Humidity (%) Wind (m/s) class
01/07/12 1711 1064 0 24.3 82.1 1.1 NOFLOOD
01/08/12 1703 1071 7 24.6 85.5 0.6 NOFLOOD
01/09/12 1703 1071 0 24.2 89 0.6 NOFLOOD
01/10/12 1755 1078 7 24.9 92.1 1.1 NOFLOOD
01/11/12 1818 1084 6 24.5 89.9 0.9 NOFLOOD
01/12/12 2082 1103 18 24.4 92.5 1.4 NOFLOOD
01/13/12 2501 1143 33 23.6 95.9 0.4 FLOOD
01/14/12 2543 1153 9 24 94.8 0.6 FLOOD
01/15/12 2239 1153 0 26.2 86.5 0.6 FLOOD
01/16/12 1955 1156 3 26.4 87.4 1 NOFLOOD
01/17/12 1863 1156 0 26.6 84.6 0.9 NOFLOOD
01/18/12 1923 1168 12 25.7 88.8 0.8 NOFLOOD
01/19/12 1916 1174 6 26.2 88.1 1 NOFLOOD
01/20/12 1991 1275 101 25.4 88.3 0.7 NOFLOOD
01/21/12 1904 1275 0 26.1 84.9 1 NOFLOOD
01/22/12 1806 1275 0 26 84.1 1 NOFLOOD
01/23/12 1806 1275 0 26.2 80.8 0.9 NOFLOOD

3.2. Experimental setup

All the Bayesian Networks and machine learning (ML) algorithms used in this research such as
Decision Trees (DT), k-Nearest Neighbours (kNN) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithms fully
available in the Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis (WEKA) [15]. The Weka software runs on
Intel(R) Core (TM) i5-4200M CPU in Window 8 (64-bit) operating system with 8 GB of random access
memory (RAM). The 10-fold cross validation was applied for validating the performance for each algorithm
in term of accuracy, precision, recall and f-measure. Five year period of sample flood data are selected to
observe the stability of performance for each Bayesian Networks and three other classifiers.

3.3. Pre-processing
The pre-processing performed in the data preparation phase is imperative before building the flood
risks prediction model using the four classification algorithms, which are BN, kNN, DT and SVM. The data
first required undergoing resampling process since the dataset is imbalance. Imbalance data is a classification
problem that occur when the target classes are not equally distributed. For example, the dataset for flood in
Kuala Krai containing about 1,795 instances of ‘no flood’ class as compared to remaining 32 instances of
‘flood’ class. According to review conducted by [16], many real world domains has imbalance data problem
and it is crucial to combat imbalance data because it will negatively affect the machine learning process and
driven error in classification or prediction. Resampling is one of the method to combat imbalance data.
Resampling process consists of oversampling and under-sampling. Oversampling is a process to add copies
or synthetic instances to under-represented class while under-sampling is a process to delete the instances
from over represented class. In other word, the oversampling method called Synthetic Minority
Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) has been applied to under-represented data class which are flood class by
adding synthetic instances to make the data class balance. [17] Proposed the SMOTE technique to combat
imbalance data by creating extra training data called synthetic data. The synthetic data were created by taking
the difference between two point or neighbours from real sample data. As a result, there new dataset will be
created randomly along the line segment between two specific features of real data. Thus, 1,795 instances of
’no flood’ class and 2,048 instances of ’flood’ class are produced after applying SMOTE to under-
represented ’flood’ class.

3.4. Modelling
This paper is set to investigate the performance of Bayesian Networks and other machine learning
techniques which are DT, kNN and SVM in predicting flood risks based on a CRISP-DM methodology. The
Bayesian approach is among of well-known techniques to be used by researchers for constructing prediction
model as well as three other ML techniques. Four classifiers techniques which are Bayesian Networks (BN),
DT, kNN and SVM are well supported by data mining tools, WEKA for executing of experiment [18].
 Bayesian Networks (BN) or also known as Bayesian Nets or Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) is a
network structure made up of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) that link features based on their
conditional probabilities which then are calculated using Bayes’ Theorem [19]. [19] Also stated that BN
also very useful in determine, represent and visualize the relationship among features from empirical
data, expert knowledge or both empirical and expert knowledge besides determine the key of
uncertainties. A K2 searching algorithm with Bayesian Dirichlet BDeu scoring metric adopted from

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2020: 73 – 80

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  77

[20] have been used to construct BN model. Note that, the initial structure learning were set to random
since the default setting in WEKA will construct naive Bayes as initial structure learning. In addition,
the number of parent node is limit to five in order to avoid complexity and high computational costs.
 Decision Tree (DT) or also known as Classification and Regression Trees (CART) is one of popular
ML techniques. The target class in classification trees is categorical type class while numerical type
class for regression trees [21]. It is shows that trees are capable to process both discrete and continuous
data. WEKA offered decision tree in its software however in this research, more advance tree algorithm,
C4.5 algorithm or also known as J48 in WEKA have been used to construct the decision tree compare to
basic REPTree. The setting of no pruning is set to false to allow the pruning process occur. Thus, it may
reduce the complexity of tree and computational costs besides deduce data over-fitting which may
increase the predictive accuracy.
 k-nearest neighbours (kNN) also supports both classification and regression same like DT. kNN is a
simple algorithm that store all training dataset and call back the data to predict the k most similar with
training pattern from stored dataset. So, kNN only used little computational costs in order to compute
the distance between two instances for k value. In WEKA, kNN algorithm were put under the ‘lazy’
group. The default setting were Linear NN Search which used Euclidean distance as distance function
parameter to calculate the distance between instances. Note that, the cross validate parameter were set to
true in order to allow WEKA discover a good value for k. However, the value of k were set to 1, 3, 5
and 7 to control the size of the neighbourhood for kNN in the experiment. The best result produced by
selected k value will be used as comparison with BN and other ML techniques. Note that 3 as k value
produced most optimum result.
 Support Vector Machine (SVM) was actually developed for solving the binary classification problems.
However, the researchers have extended the SVM to make it suitable to support multi-class
classification and regression problems. SVM has the capability to handle both continuous and discrete
data as it automatically normalizes the data before they are modelled. SVM then calculates a line that
best isolate the data into two groups and only consider those instances that are closest to the separating
line. The instances are called support vectors, hence the name of the technique. In WEKA, the SVM
algorithm is implemented as the Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO), which are the optimization
algorithm used inside the SVM implementation.

3.5. Evaluation metrics

Every prediction model has its own way of validating and evaluating its performance. Evaluation is
performed to compare whether there are similarity or consistency between the observed results and the
predicted results or across a number of different models’ predicted results. For this research, accuracy,
precision, recall and f-score has been used as evaluation metric because it has been used widely by a majority
of researchers including [2, 22] for flood risks prediction compare to other evaluation metrics such as Root
Mean Square Error [23] and model construction times [24]. Accuracy can be derived from a confusion matrix
as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Confusion matrix

NO (Prediction) YES(Prediction)
NO (Actual) True Negative (TN) False Positive (FP)
YES (Actual) False Negative (FN) True Positive (TP)

The columns represent the prediction class and rows show the actual class target. The flood outcome is
represented with the label YES, and no-flood is represented with the label NO. Therefore, diagonal elements
(TN, TP) in Table 2 shows the true predictions and the other elements (FN, FP) reflect the false predictions.
For example, there are two outcome in the flood prediction, which are flood and no-flood. The True Positive
(TP) means correct flood result prediction and True Negative (TN) means correct no-flood result prediction
while False Positive (FP) means incorrect flood result prediction and False Negative (FN) means incorrect
no-flood result prediction. If a target class is predicted as flood (YES) even though it is a no-flood (NO)
target class, this test result is added to the FP in the table. Therefore, number FP is incremented by 1. Thus,
accuracy in the confusion matrix is defined as in (1).

TP  TN (1)
Accuracy =
FP  TP  TN  FN

Machine learning approach for flood risks prediction (Nazim Razali)

78  ISSN: 2252-8938

Precision (positive predictive value) can be defined as in (2) where the total number of correctly classified
positive samples are divided by the total number of actual positive samples.

TP (2)
Precision =
FP  TP

Recall (sensitivity) know can be defined as in (3) where the total number of correctly classified positive
samples divided by the total number of predicted positive samples.

TP (3)
Recall =
TP  FN

F-measure (F1 score or F score) can be defined as the weighted harmonic mean of the precision and recall of
the samples.

2  Precision  Recall (4)

F-Measure =
Precision+Recall

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Following the previous evaluation metric used in research work carried out by [2, 22], the
experimental results for BN and three other ML techniques, DT, kNN and SVM are compared in terms of
accuracy, precision, recall and f-measure performance as the evaluation metric. Table 4 shows the
experimental results across 5 years period of flood data from Kuala Krai, Kelantan using 10-fold cross
validation. The data were divided into two, normal data and SMOTE data. Technically, the normal data
actually imbalance because the target class which are flood and no flood are not equally distributed. It may
cause the prediction results produce will be biased to majority target class. So, the data have been applied
SMOTE method in order to combat imbalance data by adding the under-presented target class with synthetic
data that derived from real data. Overall, the results shows that BN (99.94%) slightly better than other three
ML techniques which are DT (99.89%), kNN (99.50%) and SVM (98.23%) however are comparable after
application of SMOTE method to data by 99.68% (BN), 99.92% (DT), 99.86% (kNN) and 99.03% (SVM) as
well as other metric such as precision, recall and f-measure respectively. Thus, DT achieved the highest value
of precision, recall and F-measure whether in normal data and SMOTE data by 0.999. Figure 2 shows part of
experimental output from WEKA using SVM based on SMOTE data. The experimental output include
evaluation matrix such as accuracy, precision, recall and f-measure as well as confusion matrix of target class
of ’not flood’ and ’flood’.
Table 5 shows the confusion matrix for BN and three other ML techniques, DT, kNN and SVM
based on target class of ’no flood’ (NO) and ’flood’ (YES) using normal data and SMOTE data. There are
some observation has been done in the experiment. For example, it is observed that the best kNN result in
accuracy were produced if the value of k is set to 1 while other value of k such as 3, 5 and 7 produced
slightly worse result in accuracy. In other words, when the value of k increased, the accuracy achieved by
kNN will be decreased. Besides, the water level play important roles as features for flood since the feature
become main rules for DT (’no flood’ if the water level lower and equal to 2182 cm and ’flood’ if the water
level more than 2182 cm) and directly pointed to target class in BN. Meanwhile, BN still evolve over time
and has potential to be improved further in future. [25] Claimed that BN have many advantages over other
classification techniques to solve the real world problems. In their survey, they explained and discuss every
discrete BN classifier that available and categorize them in three group based on factorization. They also
stated that BN can be organised hierarchically from the simplest algorithm like naive Bayes to the most
complex like Bayesian multiunit. However, [22] stated in their work where the continuous development of
machine learning algorithms in time may expand the machine learning applications in the field of hydrology
are becoming more and more extensive in the future especially on flood risk assessment.

Table 4. Experimental results

Techniques Accuracy Precision Recall F-Measure
Normal Smote Normal Smote Normal Smote Normal Smote
Bayesian Network 99.94% 99.68% 0.999 0.997 0.999 0.997 0.999 0.997
Decision Tree 99.89% 99.92% 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
k-Nearest Neighbours 99.50% 99.73% 0.995 0.997 0.995 0.997 0.995 0.997
Support Vector Machine 99.50% 99.76% 0.995 0.998 0.995 0.998 0.995 0.998

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2020: 73 – 80

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  79

Figure 2. Excerpt of experimental output from WEKA

Table 5. Confusion matrix for all techniques based on normal data and smote data
NO (Prediction) Yes (Prediction)
Bayesian Networks with normal data
NO (Actual) 1795 0
YES (Actual) 1 31
Bayesian Networks with SMOTE data
NO (Actual) 1793 2
YES (Actual) 10 2038
Decision Tree with normal data
NO (Actual) 1793 2
YES (Actual) 0 32
Decision Tree with SMOTE data
NO (Actual) 1792 3
YES (Actual) 0 2048
k-Nearest Neigbors with normal data
NO (Actual) 1794 1
YES (Actual) 8 24
k-Nearest Neigbors with SMOTE data
NO (Actual) 1791 4
YES (Actual) 1 2047
Support Vector Machine with normal data
NO (Actual) 1795 0
YES (Actual) 9 23
Support Vector Machine with SMOTE data
NO (Actual) 1786 9
YES (Actual) 0 2048

5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

In conclusion, this research presented a flood risks prediction based on CRISP-DM methodology
using BN and three machine learning (ML) techniques known as DT, kNN and SVM. The aims of this
research is to develop a predictive modelling for flood risks prediction in Kuala Krai, Kelantan, Malaysia.
The predictive accuracy of all models were compared and results showed that BN was slightly better using
normal data. The research also found that SMOTE method are highly useful in combating with imbalance
dataset. This finding is supported by the results of the models when SMOTE method are applied. Other than
that, the study also found that each techniques as its own advantages and disadvantages. However, some
research like [11] suggest ensembles classifier is better than BN and other ML techniques such as DT, kNN
and SVM. It is also encourage to make dynamic system that can incorporate with time variation for flood
prediction as the flood event is a race with time in order to plan the preventive action that must be taken in a
short of time since flood is disaster that not just destroy huge amount of properties but also can cause loss of
many human lives.
Machine learning approach for flood risks prediction (Nazim Razali)
80  ISSN: 2252-8938

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is supported by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia via the Tier 1 Grant
Scheme Vot H073

REFERENCES
[1] M. S. Tehrany, S. Jones, and F. Shabani, “Identifying the essential flood conditioning factors for flood prone area
mapping using machine learning techniques,” Catena, vol. 175, no. April, pp. 174–192, 2019.
[2] N. I. M. Roslin, A. Mustapha, N. A. Samsudin, and N. Razali, “A bayesian approach to prediction of flood risks,”
International Journal of Engineering and Technology, vol. 7, no. 4.38, pp. 1142–1145, 2018.
[3] E. Venkatesan and A. B. Mahindrakar, “Forecasting floods using extreme gradient boosting – a new approach,”
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1336–1346, 2019.
[4] M. Othman, A. A. Latif, S. S. Maidin, M. F. M. Saad, and M. N. Ahmad, Engagement of Local Heroes in
Managing Flood Disaster: Lessons Learnt from the 2014 Flood of Kemaman, Terengganu, Malaysia. Intech Open,
2018.
[5] V. Yadav and K. Eliza, “A hybrid wavelet-support vector machine model for prediction of lake water level
fluctuations using hydro-meteorological data,” Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, vol. 103,
pp. 2655–2675, 2017.
[6] A. D. A. Dali, N. A. Omar, and A. Mustapha, “Data mining approach to herbs classification,” Indonesian Journal
of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 570–576, 2018.
[7] S. F. A. Razak, C. P. Lee, K. M. Lim, and P. X. Tee, “Smart halal recognizer for muslim consumers,” Indonesian
Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 193–200, 2019
[8] M. A. S. Anuar, R. Z. A. Rahman, S. B. Mohd, A. C. Soh, and Z. D. Zulkafli, “Early prediction system using
neural network in kelantan river, malaysia,” in Proceedings of the 15th IEEE Student Conference on Research and
Development: Inspiring Technology for Humanity, SCOReD 2017, 2018, pp. 104–109.
[9] M. Abdullah, M. Othman, S. Kasim, and S. Mohamed, “Evolving spiking neural networks methods for
classification problem: a case study in flood events risk assessment,” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 222–229, 2019.
[10] G. Zhao, B. Pang, Z. Xu, D. Peng, and L. Xu, “Assessment of urban flood susceptibility using semi-supervised
machine learning model,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 659, no. 3, pp. 940–949, 2019.
[11] Z. Geng, X. Hu, Q. Zhu, Y. Han, Y. Xu, and Y. He, “Pattern recognition for water flooded layer based on
ensemble classifier,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information
Technologies, CoDIT 2018, 2018, pp. 164–169.
[12] R. Wirth and J. Hipp, “Crisp-dm: Towards a standard process model for data mining,” in Proceedings of the 4th
international conference on the practical applications of knowledge discovery and data mining. Citeseer, 2000, pp.
29–39.
[13] The officital web of public infobanjir. [Online]. Accessed on: Nov. 24, 2019. Available:
http://publicinfobanjir.water.gov.my/
[14] Laman web rasmi jabatan meteorologi Malaysia. [Online]. Accessed on: Nov. 24, 2019. Available:
http://www.met.gov.my/
[15] I. H. Witten, E. Frank, M. A. Hall, and C. J. Pal, Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques.
Morgan Kaufmann, 2016.
[16] H. Ali, M. N. M. Salleh, R. Saedudin, K. Hussain, and M. F. Mushtaq, “Imbalance class problems in data mining:
A review,” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1552–1563,
2019.
[17] N. V. Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer, “Smote: Synthetic minority over-sampling
technique,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 16, pp. 321–357, 2002.
[18] J. Brownlee, “How to use classification machine learning algorithms in weka”, Aug. 22, 2019. Accessed on: Nov.
24, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://machinelearningmastery.com/use-classification-machine-learning-
algorithms-weka/
[19] B. G. Marcot and T. D. Penman, “Advances in bayesian network modelling: Integration of modelling
technologies,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 22, pp. 386–393, 2019.
[20] M. G. Madden, “On the classification performance of tan and general bayesian networks,” Environmental
Modelling and Software, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 489–495, 2009.
[21] N. Yadav, A. Kumar, R. Bhatnagar, and V. K. Verma, “City crime mapping using machine learning techniques,” in
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Advanced Machine Learning Technologies and Applications,
AMLTA 2019, vol. 921, 2020, pp. 656–668.
[22] X. Li, D. Yan, K. Wang, B. Weng, T. Qin, and S. Liu, “Flood risk assessment of global watersheds based on
multiple machine learning models,” Water, vol. 11, no. 1654, pp. 1–18, 2019.
[23] Y. Wu, W. Xu, J. Fengt, S. Palaiahnakote, and T. Lu, “Local and global bayesian network based model for flood
prediction,” in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, ICPR 2018, pp. 225–230,
2018.
[24] A. Hesar, H. Tabatabaee, and M. Jalali, “Structure learning of bayesian networks using heuristic methods,”
Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 45, pp. 246–250, 2012.
[25] C. Bielza and P. Larra˜naga, “Discrete bayesian network classifiers: A survey,” ACM Computing Surveys, 2014.

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2020: 73 – 80