## 3 Results
### Evaluation and Assessment of Parameters  
Contributing factors were evaluated and assessed. The decision was segregated into its independent components. It was presented in a hierarchy diagram of at least three levels: goal, criteria, and indicators. The study structure using AHP was shown in Figure 9, wherein the uppermost place of the hierarchy is the primary goal of having a flood risk map. The lower level of the order contains the criteria contributing to attaining the goal: flood hazard map, flood vulnerability map, and flood exposure map. Finally, the lowest level included the indicators: average annual rainfall, elevation, slope, flood depth, soil type, gender ratio, individual age, average income, number of PWD, highest educational attainment, water usage, emergency preparedness, types of built-up structures, distance to evacuation area, population density, land cover, and number of households. The featured weight was assigned for each parameter, where were reclassified and normalized. Assigned values depend on the type of level or category. Table 2 indicates the feature weight of every indicator. The results of the weights computed using the AHP based on experts' inputs are shown in Table 3. These are the final weights of each parameters identified through AHP and was ensured to pass the consistency index requirement for it to be considered as valid. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **AAR** & **E** & **S** & **ST** & **FD** & **Weights** & **Percentage Weights** \\ \hline
**AAR** & 0.224979 & 0.221826 & 0.259802 & 0.194982 & 0.228034 & 0.225925 & 23\% \\
**E** & 0.208256 & 0.205338 & 0.197392 & 0.202930 & 0.208920 & 0.204567 & 20\% \\
**S** & 0.154522 & 0.185622 & 0.178439 & 0.193329 & 0.188299 & 0.180042 & 18\% \\
**ST** & 0.196749 & 0.172539 & 0.157384 & 0.170516 & 0.156328 & 0.170703 & 17\% \\
**FD** & 0.215493 & 0.214675 & 0.206983 & 0.238243 & 0.21842 & 0.218763 & 22\% \\  & & & & & & & 100\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Standard matrix for hazard parameters. The final relative weights of the alternatives which were defined by computing the product's linear combination (LC) between the relative weight of each criterion and the alternative for that specific criterion are shown in Tables 2-4, whereas Tables 5-7 are the computation of CI and CR for hazard, vulnerability, and exposure, respectively. A consistency ratio of 1.32%, 3.31%, and 6.85% were noticed in the hazard, vulnerability, and exposure below 10%. The experts made repeated responses to obtain the acceptable CR for all judgments. Further, final weights for hazard, vulnerability, and exposure are shown in Table 8. These weights are integrated into ArcGIS to generate hazard, vulnerability, and exposure maps with the corresponding index value. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **PD** & **LC** & **NH** & **Weights** & **Percentage Weights** \\ \hline
**PD** & 0.326245 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 0.327369 & 33\% \\
**LC** & 0.37159 & 0.34364 & 0.31783 & 0.344357 & 34\% \\
**NH** & 0.302161 & 0.354651 & 0.328012 & 0.328274 & 33\% \\  & & & & & 100\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Standard matrix for exposure parameters. Figure 9: Multicriteria data analysis for flood risk assessment in AHP framework.