Collaborative decision making in sustainable flood risk management: A socio-technical approach and tools for participatory governance

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 335-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariele Evers ◽  
Andreja Jonoski ◽  
Adrian Almoradie ◽  
Leonie Lange
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Participatory Governance ◽  
Technical Approach ◽  
Collaborative Decision Making ◽  
Collaborative Decision

From co-production of knowledge to a participatory governance concept: a research design focusing on knowledge practices in flood risk management and disaster risk reduction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ida Wallin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Disaster Risk Reduction ◽  
Disaster Risk ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Participatory Governance ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Practices

<p>Knowledge has been shown to be more effectively implemented in practice when produced in collaboration between researchers and other stakeholders as the co-produced knowledge is more likely to be accepted and found relevant. Knowledge co-production processes have however been found guilty of depoliticizing and hiding political struggles to the end of reinforcing existing unequal power relations and prevent broad societal transformation from taking place. From this perspective, knowledge co-production can come into conflict with participatory governance that focuses on the empowerment and capacity building of actors, social justice and advocacy. In this presentation I take a closer look at this conflictual perspective and propose a research focus on knowledge practices for exploring and analyzing participatory governance options for flood risk management (FRM) and disaster risk reduction (DRR). I do this by exemplifying and presenting a research design developed within the newly started PARADeS-project.</p><p>The PARADeS-project is a research project led by German research institutions in close collaboration with partners in Ghana and with the overall aim to contribute to enhancing Ghana’s national flood risk and disaster management strategy. Co-production of knowledge is foreseen to take place in several workshops including collaborative modelling, scenario- and policy back-casting exercises. One of the planned project outputs is a concept of participatory governance in FRM and DRR based on the findings from a stakeholder analysis, a policy network analysis and a participatory assessment of different policy options.</p><p>In this project context a research focus on stakeholders’ knowledge practices can be used to inform and improve the participatory governance concept and facilitate its implementation process. Knowledge is used by stakeholders as a powerful resource in suggesting certain policy options and convincing others of their necessity. Knowledge practices entail how actors use knowledge to argue, convince and make decisions. Through knowledge practices, stakeholders decide what knowledge to base decisions on and how to convince others of their position using that knowledge. What knowledge becomes accepted as legitimate in such interactions - often deliberative settings - can be decisive for the acceptability of any policy option. It is therefore important to study not only the different types of stakeholders and technical options for FRM and DRR, but the interaction between stakeholders and how they use information and co-create knowledge - the knowledge practices.</p><p>Within the presentation I discuss the proposed research design for how to study knowledge practices and how to make use of these findings when going from research project and co-production of knowledge to a concept of participatory governance in flood risk management and disaster risk reduction in Ghana.</p>

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.

scholarly journals Insurance as Strategy for Flood Risk Management at Limpopo River Basin A decision making Process under Uncertainty

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1862-1877
Author(s):  
Avelino Isaias Mondlane ◽  
Karin Hansson ◽  
Oliver B. Popov
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
River Basin ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
International Rivers ◽  
Ex Ante

The Limpopo River Basin, one of the nine international rivers crossing Mozambique, historically has shown to be cyclically flooded, undermining the economic and social development of its four riparian countries. Local and external added efforts are always in place when floods occur. Nowadays there are recommended ex-ante instruments to prevent floods and one of the most applicable instruments worldwide is insurance. Most of the inhabitants, even governments, affected by Limpopo River Basin are poor, therefore our concern regards the viability to apply insurance as a strategy for flood risk management. Moreover our research investigates to what extent the application of insurance, within two identified communities as case study, might create an added value in the process of decision making on flood risk management for Limpopo River Basin.

scholarly journals Fluvial flood risk management in a changing world

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Merz ◽  
J. Hall ◽  
M. Disse ◽  
A. Schumann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Management ◽  
Flood Risk Management ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Organizational Characteristics ◽  
The Social ◽  
Uncertain Future ◽  
Integrated Responses

Abstract. Flood risk emerges from the interaction of hazard and vulnerability. Over recent decades the notion of risk being the basis for flood management decisions has become widely accepted and operationalised through the use of models and quantified risk analysis providing the evidence for risk-informed decision making. However, it is now abundantly apparent that changes in time, at a range of scales, of pertinent variables that determine risk are not a second order consideration but, instead, fundamentally challenge the conventional approach to flood risk management. The nature of some of these changes, particularly those that operate on extended timescales, are highly uncertain, yet decisions that may have implications for several decades still have to be taken. In this paper we explore how flood risk management may be adapted to address processes of uncertain future change. We identify a range of levels at which change may be incorporated in decision making: in the representation of uncertain non-stationary quantities; in the rules that are used to identify preferred options; in the variety of options that may be contemplated for flood risk management; in the scope of problem definition, which increasingly extends to address multiple hazards and multiple functions of river basins; and in the social and organizational characteristics that promote adaptive capacity. Integrated responses to changing flood risk need to attend to each of these levels of decision making, from the technicalities of non-stationarity, to the promotion of resilient societies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document