Prioritization of flood vulnerability, coping capacity and exposure indicators through the Delphi technique: A case study in Taquari-Antas basin, Brazil

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

Volumn 24, Issue , 2017, Pages 119-128

  de Brito, Mariana Madruga ^a   Evers, Mariele ^a   Höllermann, Britta ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Consensus building; Delphi method; Flood vulnerability; Indicators; Participation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85020478463     PISSN: 22124209     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.05.027     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. UNISDR, Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015 -2013, Geneva. doi:A/CONF.224/CRP.1, 2015.
2. Koks, E.E., Jongman, B., Husby, T.G., Botzen, W.J.W., Combining hazard, exposure and social vulnerability to provide lessons for flood risk management. Environ. Sci. Policy 47 (2015), 42–52, 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.013.
3. Jongman, B., Winsemius, H.C., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Coughlan de Perez, E., van Aalst, M.K., Kron, W., Ward, P.J., Declining vulnerability to river floods and the global benefits of adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2015, 201414439, 10.1073/pnas.1414439112.
4. UNISDR, Terminology on disaster risk reduction, UNISDR, Geneva, 2009.
5. Reilly, B., Disaster and Human History: Case Studies in Nature. 2009, Society and Catastrophe, McFarland, Jefferson.
6. Birkmann, J., Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: towards disaster resilient societies. 2006, United Nations University Press, Hong Kong.
7. R.L. Ciurean, D. Schröter, T. Glade, Conceptual frameworks of vulnerability assessments for natural disasters reduction, in: Approaches to Disaster Manag. - Examining Implic. Hazards, Emergencies Disasters, InTech, 2013: pp. 3–32. doi:10.5772/55538.
8. Müller, A., Reiter, J., Weiland, U., Assessment of urban vulnerability towards floods using an indicator-based approach-a case study for Santiago de Chile. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (2011), 2107–2123, 10.5194/nhess-11-2107-2011.
9. Lee, G., Jun, K.S., Chung, E.S., Integrated multi-criteria flood vulnerability approach using fuzzy TOPSIS and Delphi technique. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13 (2013), 1293–1312, 10.5194/nhess-13-1293-2013.
10. Fekete, A., Spatial disaster vulnerability and risk assessments: challenges in their quality and acceptance. Nat. Hazards 61 (2012), 1161–1178, 10.1007/s11069-011-9973-7.
11. Scheuer, S., Haase, D., Meyer, V., Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: from a starting point view towards an end point view of vulnerability. Nat. Hazards 58 (2011), 731–751, 10.1007/s11069-010-9666-7.
12. Kandilioti, G., Makropoulos, C., Preliminary flood risk assessment: the case of Athens. Nat. Hazards 61 (2012), 441–468, 10.1007/s11069-011-9930-5.
13. Solín, Ľ., Spatial variability in the flood vulnerability of urban areas in the headwater basins of Slovakia. J. Flood Risk Manag. 5 (2012), 303–320, 10.1111/j.1753-318X.2012.01153.x.
14. Roy, D.C., Blaschke, T., Spatial vulnerability assessment of floods in the coastal regions of Bangladesh, Geomatics. Nat. Hazards Risk. 6 (2015), 21–44, 10.1080/19475705.2013.816785.
15. Rufat, S., Tate, E., Burton, C.G., Maroof, A.S., Social vulnerability to floods: review of case studies and implications for measurement. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 14 (2015), 470–486, 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.09.013.
16. de Brito, M.M., Evers, M., Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 16 (2016), 1019–1033, 10.5194/nhess-16-1019-2016.
17. Oulahen, G., Mortsch, L., Tang, K., Harford, D., Unequal vulnerability to flood hazards: “ground truthing” a social vulnerability index of five municipalities in Metro Vancouver. Can., Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 105 (2015), 473–495, 10.1080/00045608.2015.1012634.
18. UNDRO, Natural disasters and vulnerability analysis, Geneva, 1980.
19. Kappes, M.S., Papathoma-Köhle, M., Keiler, M., Papathoma-K??hle, M., Keiler, M., Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology. Appl. Geogr. 32 (2012), 577–590, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.07.002.
20. Papathoma-Köhle, M., Keiler, M., Totschnig, R., Glade, T., Improvement of vulnerability curves using data from extreme events: debris flow event in South Tyrol. Nat. Hazards 64 (2012), 2083–2105, 10.1007/s11069-012-0105-9.
21. D. Spalding, A. McIvor, F.H. Tonneijck, S. Tol, P. van Eijk, Mangroves for coastal defence: guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers, Cambridge, 2014. 〈 http://www.nature.org/media/oceansandcoasts/mangroves-for-coastal-defence.pdf〉.
22. O.D. Cardona, M.K. van Aalst, Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability, in: Manag. Risks Extrem. Events Disasters to Adv. Clim. Chang. Adapt. - A Spec. Rep. Work. Groups I II Intergov. Panel Clim. Chang: pp. 65–108. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139177245.005, 2012.
23. Becker, F., De, F.L., Ferrer, J., Bertaco, V., Luz-Agostinho, K., Silva, J., Cardoso, A., Lucena, Z., Lucena, C., Fishes of the Taquari-Antas river basin (Patos lagoon basin), southern Brazil., Brazilian. J. Biol. 73 (2013), 79–90.
24. CEMADEN, Municípios monitorados. 〈www.cemaden.gov.br/municipiosprio〉 (accessed 31 March 2017), 2017.
25. Beccari, B., A comparative analysis of disaster risk, vulnerability and resilience composite indicators. PLoS Curr. Disasters, 14, 2016, 10.1371/currents.dis.453df025e34b682e9737f95070f9b970.
26. Krueger, T., Page, T., Hubacek, K., Smith, L., Hiscock, K., The role of expert opinion in environmental modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 36 (2012), 4–18, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.01.011.
27. K. Musiał, P. Kazienko, P. Bródka, User position measures in social networks, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Work. Soc. Netw. Min. Anal: pp. 1–9. doi:10.1145/1731011.1731017, 2009.
28. Chu, H.C., Hwang, G.J., A Delphi-based approach to developing expert systems with the cooperation of multiple experts. Expert Syst. Appl. 34 (2008), 2826–2840, 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.05.034.
29. Powell, C., The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J. Adv. Nurs. 41 (2003), 376–382, 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x.
30. von der Gracht, H.A., Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79 (2012), 1525–1536, 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013.
31. Giannarou, L., Zervas, E., Using Delphi technique to build consensus in practice. Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 9 (2014), 65–82.
32. Alshehri, S.A., Rezgui, Y., Li, H., Delphi-based consensus study into a framework of community resilience to disaster. Nat. Hazards 75 (2015), 2221–2245, 10.1007/s11069-014-1423-x.
33. Shah, H.A., Kalaian, S.A., Which is the best parametric statistical method for analyzing Delphi data?. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 8 (2009), 226–232.
34. Akins, R.B., Tolson, H., Cole, B.R., Stability of response characteristics of a delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 5 (2005), 1–12, 10.1186/1471-2288-5-37.
35. Wakai, A., O'Sullivan, R., Staunton, P., Walsh, C., Hickey, F., Plunkett, P.K., Development of key performance indicators for emergency departments in Ireland using an electronic modified-Delphi consensus approach. Eur. J. Emerg. Med., 20, 2013, 10.1097/MEJ.0b013e328351e5d8.
36. A. Gibbs, Focus groups and group interviews, in: J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe, L.V. Hedges (Eds.), Res. Methods Methodol. Educ., SAGE Publications Ltd, London, 2012: pp. 186–192.
37. Frey, J.H., Fontana, A., The group interview in social research. Soc. Sci. J. 28 (1991), 175–187, 10.1016/0362-3319(91)90003-M.
38. Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A.H., Gustafson, D., Group Techniques for Program Planning: a Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. 1975, Scott Foresman and Company, Glenview.
39. Plattner, T., Plapp, T., Hebel, B., Integrating public risk perception into formal natural hazard risk assessment. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 6 (2006), 471–483, 10.5194/nhess-6-471-2006.
40. Kienberger, S., Lang, S., Zeil, P., Spatial vulnerability units – expert-based spatial modelling of socio-economic vulnerability in the Salzach catchment. Austria, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9 (2009), 767–778, 10.5194/nhess-9-767-2009.
41. Guo, E., Zhang, J., Ren, X., Zhang, Q., Sun, Z., Integrated risk assessment of flood disaster based on improved set pair analysis and the variable fuzzy set theory in central Liaoning Province. China, Nat. Hazards 74 (2014), 947–965, 10.1007/s11069-014-1238-9.
42. World Bank, Climate change, disaster risk, and the urban poor: cities building resilience for a changing world, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012.
43. Schmidt, R.C., Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decis. Sci. 28 (1997), 763–774, 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01330.x.
44. Li, G.F., Xiang, X.X., Tong, Y.Y., Wang, H.M., Impact assessment of urbanization on flood risk in the Yangtze River Delta. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 27 (2013), 1683–1693, 10.1007/s00477-013-0706-1.
45. Zou, Q., Zhou, J., Zhou, C., Song, L., Guo, J., Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 27 (2013), 525–546, 10.1007/s00477-012-0598-5.
46. IBGE, Censo demográfico 2010, (2010). 〈http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2010/default.shtm〉 (accessed 18 November 2016).
47. Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M., Delphi Method - Tech. Appl., 2002, 10.2307/1268751.
48. Nasiri, H., Mohd Yusof, M.J., Mohammad Ali, T.A., An overview to flood vulnerability assessment methods. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2 (2016), 1–6, 10.1007/s40899-016-0051-x.
49. Parsons, M., Glavac, S., Hastings, P., Marshall, G., McGregor, J., McNeill, J., Morley, P., Reeve, I., Stayner, R., Top-down assessment of disaster resilience: a conceptual framework using coping and adaptive capacities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 19 (2016), 1–11, 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.07.005.
50. Meyer, V., Scheuer, S., Haase, D., A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany. Nat. Hazards 48 (2009), 17–39, 10.1007/s11069-008-9244-4.
51. IBGE, Atlas de saneamento, Brasília, 2011.
52. Barcellos, C., Sabroza, P.C., The place behind the case: leptospirosis risks and associated environmental conditions in a flood-related outbreak in Rio de Janeiro. Cad. Saude Publica 17 (2001), 59–67, 10.1590/S0102-311×2001000700014.
53. Douglas, I., Alam, K., Maghenda, M., McDonnel, Y., Mclean, L., Campbell, J., Unjust waters: climate change, fl ooding and the urban poor in Africa. Environ. Urban. 20 (2008), 187–205, 10.1177/0956247808089156.
54. Kubal, C., Haase, D., Meyer, V., Scheuer, S., Integrated urban flood risk assessment – adapting a multicriteria approach to a city. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9 (2009), 1881–1895, 10.5194/nhess-9-1881-2009.
55. Lee, G., Jun, K.S., Chung, E.-S., Group decision-making approach for flood vulnerability identification using the fuzzy VIKOR method. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 15 (2015), 863–874, 10.5194/nhess-15-863-2015.
56. Saxena, S., Geethalakshmi, V., Lakshmanan, A., Development of habitation vulnerability assessment framework for coastal hazards: cuddalore coast in Tamil Nadu, India- a case study. Weather Clim. Extrem 2 (2013), 48–57, 10.1016/j.wace.2013.10.001.
57. Sowmya, K., John, C.M., Shrivasthava, N.K., Urban flood vulnerability zoning of Cochin City, southwest coast of India, using remote sensing and GIS. Nat. Hazards 75 (2015), 1271–1286, 10.1007/s11069-014-1372-4.
58. Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., Kuhlicke, C., The risk perception paradox-implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal. 33 (2013), 1049–1065, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x.
59. Cutter, S., Tiefenbacher, J., Solecki, W.D., En-gendered fears: femininity and technological risk perception. Cutter, S.L., (eds.) Hazards Vulnerability Environmental Justice, 2006, Earthscam, New York, 177–192.
60. Ashley, S.T., Ashley, W.S., Flood fatalities in the United States. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 47 (2008), 805–818, 10.1175/2007JAMC1611.1.
61. Fitzgerald, G., Du, W., Jamal, A., Clark, M., Hou, X.Y., Flood fatalities in contemporary Australia (1997–2008): disaster medicine. EMA - Emerg. Med. Australas. 22 (2010), 180–186, 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2010.01284.x.
62. Jonkman, S.N., Kelman, I., An analysis of the causes and circumstances of flood disaster deaths. Disasters 29 (2005), 75–97, 10.1111/j.0361-3666.2005.00275.x.
63. Muttarak, R., Pothisiri, W., The role of education on disaster preparedness: case study of 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes on Thailand's Andaman coast. Ecol. Soc., 18, 2013, 10.5751/ES-06101-180451.
64. Hirata, E., Giannotti, M.A., Larocca, A.P.C., Quintanilha, J.A., Mapeamento dinâmico e colaborativo de alagamentos na cidade de São Paulo. Bol. Cienc. Geod. 19 (2013), 602–623, 10.1590/S1982-21702013000400006.
65. M.M. Brito, A. Passuello, E.M.A. Giazzon, C. Korzenowski, S.F. De Araújo, A.L. Alves, A participatory and integrated flood risk management experience: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Flood Management, pp. 1–8, 2014.
66. Favero, E., Trindade, M.C., Passuello, A., Pauletti, C., Foresti, A.J., Sarriera, J.C., Silva Filho, L.C.P., Percepção de risco ambiental: uma análise a partir de anotações de campo. Interam. J. Psychol. 50 (2016), 64–74.
67. Elmer, F., Seifert, I., Kreibich, H., Thieken, A.H., A Delphi method expert survey to derive standards for flood damage data collection. Risk Anal. 30 (2010), 107–124, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01325.x.
68. Fuchs, S., Birkmann, J., Glade, T., Vulnerability assessment in natural hazard and risk analysis: current approaches and future challenges. Nat. Hazards 64 (2012), 1969–1975, 10.1007/s11069-012-0352-9.
69. Godfrey, A., Ciurean, R.L., van Westen, C.J., Kingma, N.C., Glade, T., Assessing vulnerability of buildings to hydro-meteorological hazards using an expert based approach – An application in Nehoiu Valley, Romania. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 13 (2015), 229–241, 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.06.001.
70. Fuchs, S., Susceptibility versus resilience to mountain hazards in Austria - paradigms of vulnerability revisited. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9 (2009), 337–352.
71. Wedgwood, R., Intemalism explained. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 65 (2002), 349–369.
72. Stirling, A., Mayer, S., A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk: a multicriteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop. Environ. Plan. C. Gov. Policy 19 (2001), 529–555, 10.1068/c8s.
73. Abdi, H., Williams, L.J., Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2 (2010), 433–459, 10.1002/wics.101.
74. Gnatzy, T., Warth, J., von der Gracht, H., Darkow, I.L., Validating an innovative real-time Delphi approach - A methodological comparison between real-time and conventional Delphi studies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 78 (2011), 1681–1694, 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.006.
75. Maynard, L., Jacobson, S.K., Stakeholder participation in wildlife management: adapting the nominal group technique in developing countries for participants with low literacy. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 1209 (2016), 1–12, 10.1080/10871209.2016.1225139.
76. Bens, I., Advanced Facilitation Strategies: Tools & Techniques to Master Difficult Situations. 2005, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco.
77. Yousuf, M.I., Using experts’ opinions through Delphi technique. Pract. Assess., Res. Eval., 12, 2007 〈http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?〉 (doi:May 2007).
78. Ravera, F., Hubacek, K., Reed, M., Tarrasón, D., Learning from experiences in adaptive action research: a critical comparison of two case studies applying participatory scenario development and modelling approaches. Environ. Policy Gov. 21 (2011), 433–453, 10.1002/eet.585.