Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Flood Risk Management

2012 ◽  
pp. 53-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Hansson ◽  
Mats Danielson ◽  
Love Ekenberg ◽  
Joost Buurman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Multiple Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Multiple Criteria

GIS based Development of MCDM Model for Flood Risk Management across Godavari Lower Sub-Basin of India

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Thanga Gurusamy ◽  
Avinash D Vasudeo ◽  
Aniruddha Dattatraya Ghare
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Evolutionary Algorithms ◽  
Objective Function ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Hazard ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Flood Protection ◽  
Hazard Zonation ◽  
Hazard Risk

<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Because of the uncertainty and high cost involved, the Absolute Flood Protection has not been considered as a rational decision. Hence the trend is to replace Absolute Flood Protection strategy by Flood Risk Management Strategy. This Paper focus on the development of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) model towards Flood Risk Management (FRM) across Godavari Lower Sub-Basin of India using GIS based methodologies for Flood Hazard Zonation in order to achieve global minimum of the Flood predicted Risk level.  Flood Hazard Zone Map for the historical flood events obtained with the use of GIS based Digital Elevation Models across the study area have been presented and used for the estimation of Hazard Risk. Uncertainty (or Control) Risk levels of each Flood estimated using various Flood Forecasting methodologies have been compared for the selected locations of the study area. Effectiveness of Passive Flood Protection Measures in the form of Flood Levees has been quantitatively analyzed for the increase in the Opportunity Risk and corresponding reduction in the Flood Hazard Risk. Various types of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs) have been used  to determine a Compromise solution with conflicting criteria between Hazard Risk and Opportunity (or Investment) Risk and the results were compared for each of the selected levels of Flood estimated with corresponding uncertainty. Traditional optimization method in the form of Pareto-Optimal Front have also been graphically depicted for the minimization of both Hazard Risk Objective function and Opportunity Risk Objective Function and compared with those obtained using MOEAs. Watershed wise distribution of optimized Flood Risk variation across the Sub-basin has been presented graphically for both the cases of with and without active Flood Routing Measures. <strong>Keywords:  </strong>Flood Risk Management; GIS based Flood Hazard Zonation; Multi-Criteria Decision Making; Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms; Godavari Lower Sub-Basin of India;</p>

Real Options in flood risk management decision making

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Woodward ◽  
B. Gouldby ◽  
Z. Kapelan ◽  
S.-T. Khu ◽  
I. Townend
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Real Options ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Management Decision ◽  
Management Decision Making

scholarly journals Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 1019-1033 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariana Madruga de Brito ◽  
Mariele Evers
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Order Preference ◽  
Criteria Weights ◽  
Simple Additive Weighting

Abstract. This paper provides a review of multi-criteria decision-making  (MCDM) applications to flood risk management, seeking to highlight trends and identify research gaps. A total of 128 peer-reviewed papers published from 1995 to June 2015 were systematically analysed. Results showed that the number of flood MCDM publications has exponentially grown during this period, with over 82 % of all papers published since 2009. A wide range of applications were identified, with most papers focusing on ranking alternatives for flood mitigation, followed by risk, hazard, and vulnerability assessment. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was the most popular method, followed by Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). Although there is greater interest in MCDM, uncertainty analysis remains an issue and was seldom applied in flood-related studies. In addition, participation of multiple stakeholders has been generally fragmented, focusing on particular stages of the decision-making process, especially on the definition of criteria weights. Therefore, addressing the uncertainties around stakeholders' judgments and endorsing an active participation in all steps of the decision-making process should be explored in future applications. This could help to increase the quality of decisions and the implementation of chosen measures.

scholarly journals Review Article: Multi-criteria decision making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state-of-the-art

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
pp. 6689-6726 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. de Brito ◽  
M. Evers
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Control ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Coping Capacity ◽  
Order Preference ◽  
Criteria Weights ◽  
Simple Additive Weighting

Abstract. This paper provides a review of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) applications to flood risk management, seeking to highlight trends and identify research gaps. Totally, 128 peer-reviewed papers published from 1995 to June 2015 were systematically analysed and classified into the following application areas: (1) ranking of alternatives for flood mitigation, (2) reservoir flood control, (3) susceptibility, (4) hazard, (5) vulnerability, (6) risk, (7) coping capacity, and (8) emergency management. Additionally, the articles were categorized based on the publication year, MCDM method, whether they were or were not carried out in a participatory process, and if uncertainty and sensitivity analysis were performed. Results showed that the number of flood MCDM publications has exponentially grown during this period, with over 82 % of all papers published since 2009. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was the most popular technique, followed by Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). Although there is greater interest on MCDM, uncertainty analysis remains an issue and is seldom applied in flood-related studies. In addition, participation of multiple stakeholders has been generally fragmented, focusing on particular stages of the decision-making process, especially on the definition of criteria weights. Based on the survey, some suggestions for further investigation are provided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document