Performance Comparison of Random Forest, XGBoost, and SVM for Flood Risk Prediction Using BNPB GIS Data

Authors

  • Muhammad Amanulloh Mz Indonesia
  • Oky Dwi Nurhayati Indonesia
  • Jatmiko Endro Suseno Indonesia
Pages Icon

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63158/journalisi.v8i1.1461

Keywords:

Flood Prediction, Machine Learning, Random Forest, XGBoost, SVM, Disaster Risk, Early Warning System

Abstract

This study compares the performance of three machine learning algorithms—Random Forest, XGBoost, and Support Vector Machine (SVM)—for predicting flood risk using spatial and non-spatial data from BNPB GIS. The analysis focuses on disaster records from January 3 to 15, 2026, with district-city as the spatial unit of observation. Following data cleaning, exploratory analysis, and feature preparation, the models were evaluated using ROC-AUC, PR-AUC, F1-Score, Precision, Recall, and Accuracy. XGBoost demonstrated the highest ROC-AUC (0.675), indicating strong overall performance in distinguishing flood from non-flood events. Random Forest achieved the highest Recall (0.947), showing superior sensitivity in detecting flood events, while SVM exhibited fluctuating performance with a lower ROC-AUC (0.496). Visualizations of model behavior and spatial flood patterns were provided to support model interpretability. The study’s results suggest that ensemble models, particularly XGBoost and Random Forest, can significantly enhance flood risk prediction, improving the accuracy and sensitivity of early warning systems. These findings contribute to the development of more effective data-driven flood mitigation strategies in Indonesia, enabling better disaster preparedness and response.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, “Data dan Informasi Kebencanaan Bulanan Teraktual,” Info Bencana, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2025.

[2] Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, “Indeks Risiko Bencana Indonesia Tahun 2024,” Indeks Risiko Bencana Indonesia Tahun 2024, vol. 03, pp. 1–184, 2024.

[3] Y. S. Ajaj, I. A. Ahmad, N. A. Mohammed, and N. Yahya, “Leveraging AI for Disaster Management: A Comprehensive Review of Applications and Challenges BT - Intelligent Systems, Blockchain, and Communication Technologies,” A. Abdelgawad, A. Jamil, and A. A. Hameed, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025, pp. 177–184.

[4] L. Dong, Y. Bai, Q. Xu, and E. Mas, “Optimizing the Post-disaster Resource Allocation with Q-Learning: Demonstration of 2021 China Flood BT - Database and Expert Systems Applications,” C. Strauss, A. Cuzzocrea, G. Kotsis, A. M. Tjoa, and I. Khalil, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 256–262.

[5] B. J. Weiner, “A theory of organizational readiness for change,” Implementation Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2009, doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-67.

[6] Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, Indeks Risiko Bencana Indonesia Tahun 2023. 2023.

[7] A. Anindyaputri, J. E. Suseno, and C. E. Widodo, “An Integrated Information System for Selection of Areas Tourist Sites Using Clustering and Electre Methods,” vol. 165, no. Iccsr, pp. 71–75, 2018, doi: 10.2991/iccsr-18.2018.16.

[8] H. Xiang and T. Itagaki, “The Social Impact of IoT in Disasters,” 2nd International Conference on IT Innovations and Knowledge Discovery, ITIKD 2024, pp. 1–7, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ITIKD63574.2025.11005074.

[9] M. Janardhan, B. Likhitha, O. Purandeswari, P. Rani, and G. Harshini, “IoT and AI for Efficient Forest Fire Detection, Monitoring, and Risk Prediction with Real-Time Alerts,” Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Trends in Material Science and Inventive Materials, ICTMIM 2025, pp. 1324–1330, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ICTMIM65579.2025.10988101.

[10] X. Wu, H. Cheng, B. Wu, N. Jiang, and Y. Huang, “A regional XGBoost-based predictive model for the cumulative hours of wind speed levels,” Atmos. Res., vol. 327, no. June 2025, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2025.108336.

[11] S. Lee et al., “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemberian Bantuan Logistik Bencana Banjir di Jawa Tengah Berdasarkan Proses Hierarki Analitik,” J. Chem. Inf. Model., vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 1689–1699, 2012, [Online]. Available: 10.1016/j.tws.2012.02.007

[12] M. Harigane et al., “Indonesian Disaster Dataset Based on Type for Technology-Based Disaster Management and Mitigation,” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 123–132, 2025, doi: 10.17632/pyftdypmfs.1.

[13] A. Vereshchaka and W. Dong, “Dynamic Resource Allocation During Natural Disasters Using Multi-Agent Environment BT - Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling,” R. Thomson, H. Bisgin, C. Dancy, and A. Hyder, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 123–132.

[14] T. Agfianto, D. A. Wijaya, N. Wijayanto, N. Wulandari, C. Baker-Beall, and A. Chapman, “Preparedness of geotourism facilities in disaster mitigation based on the global South viewpoint: case study of East Java, Indonesia,” Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 354–366, 2025, doi: 10.1108/WHATT-01-2025-0039.

[15] H. Dai et al., “Collaborative Scheduling Framework for Post-Disaster Restoration: Integrating Electric Vehicles and Traffic Dynamics in Waterlogging Scenarios,” Energies (Basel)., vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 1–20, 2025, doi: 10.3390/en18071708.

Downloads

Published

2026-03-03

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

[1]
M. A. Mz, O. D. Nurhayati, and J. E. Suseno, “Performance Comparison of Random Forest, XGBoost, and SVM for Flood Risk Prediction Using BNPB GIS Data”, journalisi, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 992–1010, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.63158/journalisi.v8i1.1461.

Most read articles by the same author(s)