Participatory flood vulnerability assessment: A multi-criteria approach

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 373-390

  De Brito, Mariana Madruga ^a   Evers, Mariele ^a   Delos Santos Almoradie, Adrian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EDUCATION; FLOODS; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS; ANALYTICAL NETWORK PROCESSES (ANP); FLOOD VULNERABILITIES; MULTI-CRITERIA APPROACH; MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING; MULTI-CRITERIA METHOD; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PARTICIPATORY METHODS;

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; DECISION MAKING; DELPHI ANALYSIS; EXPERT SYSTEM; FLOOD; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; VULNERABILITY;

BRAZIL; ESTRELA; RIO GRANDE DO SUL;

EID: 85040792431     PISSN: 10275606     EISSN: 16077938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/hess-22-373-2018     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Alfares, H. and Duffuaa, S.: Assigning cardinal weights in multi-criteria decision making based on ordinal ranking, J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal., 133, 125-133, https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda, 2008.
2. Andersson, L., Olsson, J. A., Arheimer, B., and Jonsson, A.: Use of participatory scenario modelling as platforms in stakeholder dialogues, Water SA, 34, 439-447, 2008.
3. Azizi, A., Malekmohammadi, B., Jafari, H. R., Nasiri, H., and Amini Parsa, V.: Land suitability assessment for wind power plant site selection using ANP-DEMATEL in a GIS environment: Case study of Ardabil province, Iran, Environ. Monit. Assess., 186, 6695-6709, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3883-6, 2014.
4. Bakkensen, L. A., Fox-Lent, C., Read, L. K., and Linkov, I.: Validating resilience and vulnerability indices in the context of natural disasters, Risk Anal., 37, 982-1004, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12677, 2017.
5. Barthel, R., Seidl, R., Nickel, D., and Büttner, H.: Global change impacts on the Upper Danube Catchment (Central Europe): A study of participatory modeling, Reg. Environ. Change, 16, 1595-1611, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0895-x, 2015.
6. Beccari, B.: A comparative analysis of disaster risk, vulnerability and resilience composite indicators, PLOS Currents Disasters, 2016 Mar 14, Edn. 1, https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.453df025e34b682e9737f950 70f9b970, 2016.
7. Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. E., and Lenton, T. M.: "Opening up" geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change, Global Environ. Chang., 23, 926-937, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011, 2013.
8. Belton, V. and Stewart, T. J.: Multiple Criteria Decision: An Integrated Approach, Springer, 2002.
9. Birkmann, J.: Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, United Nations University Press, Hong Kong, 2006.
10. Birkmann, J., Cardona, O. D., Carreño, M. L., Barbat, A. H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer, S., Kienberger, S., Keiler, M., Alexander, D., Zeil, P., andWelle, T.: Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: The MOVE framework, Nat. Hazards, 67, 193-211, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0558-5, 2013.
11. Birkmann, J., Kienberger, S., and Alexander, D. E.: Introduction vulnerability: A key determinant of risk and its importance for risk management and sustainability, in: Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards, Elsevier, ix-xiii, 2014.
12. Bombassaro, M. and Robaina, L. E. D. S.: Contribuição Geográfica para o Estudo das Inundações na Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Taquari-Antas, RS, Geografias, 6, 69-86, 2010.
13. Brusco, M. J., Singh, R., Cradit, J. D., and Steinley, D.: Cluster analysis in empirical OM research: Survey and recommendations, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Man., 37, 300-320, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2015-0493, 2017.
14. Cardona, O. D. and van Aalst, M. K.: Determinants of risk: Exposure and vulnerability, in: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation - a Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 65-108, 2012.
15. CEMADEN: Municípios monitorados, available at: www.cemaden. gov.br/municipiosprio, last access: 31 March 2017.
16. Chang, L. and Huang, S.: Assessing urban flooding vulnerability with an emergy approach, Landscape Urban Plan., 143, 11-24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.004, 2015.
17. Chen, Y., Yu, J., and Khan, S.: Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation, Environ. Modell. Softw., 25, 1582-1591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.06.001, 2010.
18. Chen, L., van Westen, C. J., Hussin, H., Ciurean, R. L., Turkington, T., Chavarro-Rincon, D., and Shrestha, D. P.: Integrating expert opinion with modelling for quantitative multi-hazard risk assessment in the Eastern Italian Alps, Geomorphology, 273, 150-167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.07.041, 2016.
19. Cinelli, M., Coles, S. R., and Kirwan, K.: Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment, Ecol. Indic., 46, 138-148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.011, 2014.
20. Ciurean, R. L., Schröter, D., and Glade, T.: Conceptual frameworks of vulnerability assessments for natural disasters reduction, in: Approaches to Disaster Management - Examining the Implications of Hazards, Emergencies and Disasters, InTech, 3-32, 2013.
21. CPRM: Ação emergencial para reconhecimento de áreas de alto e muito alto risco a movimentos de massas e enchentes, Estrela, Porto Alegre, 2012.
22. CPRM: Ação emergencial para reconhecimento de áreas de alto e muito alto risco a movimentos de massas e enchentes, Lajeado, Porto Alegre, 2013.
23. Croasmun, J. T. and Ostrom, L.: Using Likert-Type scales in the social sciences, J. Adult Educ., 40, 19-22, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9463-0, 2011.
24. Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., and Shirley, W. L.: Social vulnerability to environmental hazards, Soc. Sci. Quart., 84, 242-261, https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002, 2003.
25. de Brito, M. M. and 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, 1019-1033, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1019-2016, 2016.
26. de Brito, M. M., Evers, M., and Höllermann, B.: Prioritization of flood vulnerability, coping capacity and exposure indicators through the Delphi technique: A case study in Taquari-Antas basin, Brazil, Int. J. Disast. Risk Re., 24, 119-128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.05.027, 2017.
27. ESRI: How polygon to raster works, available at: Http://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/tool-reference/conversion/ how-polygon-to-raster-works.htm, last access: 5 September, 2017.
28. Evers, M.: Participation in Flood Risk Management: An Introduction and Recommendations for Implementation. Rapportserie Klimat och säkerhet, Karlstad, 2012.
29. Fadel, A. W.: Incorporação do risco de prejuízo no gerenciamento de medidas de controle de inundação, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 2015.
30. Falconi, S. M. and Palmer, R. N.: An interdisciplinary framework for participatory modeling design and evaluation-What makes models effective participatory decision tools?, Water Resour. Res., 53, 1625-1645, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019373, 2017.
31. Fekete, A.: Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 393- 403, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-393-2009, 2009.
32. Fekete, A.: Spatial disaster vulnerability and risk assessments: Challenges in their quality and acceptance, Nat. Hazards, 61, 1161- 1178, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9973-7, 2012.
33. FEPAM: Qualidade das águas da bacia hidrografica do Rio das Antas e Rio Taquari, available at: Http://www.fepam.rs.gov.br/ qualidade/qualidade-taquari-antas/taquariantas.asp, last access: 2 June 2017, 2010.
34. Frey, J. H. and Fontana, A.: The group interview in social research, Soc. Sci. J., 28, 175-187, https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-3319(91)90003-M, 1991.
35. Frigerio, I. and de Amicis, M.: Mapping social vulnerability to natural hazards in Italy: A suitable tool for risk mitigation strategies, Environ. Sci. Policy, 63, 187-196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.001, 2016.
36. Fuchs, S.: Susceptibility versus resilience to mountain hazards in Austria - paradigms of vulnerability revisited, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 337-352, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-337-2009, 2009.
37. Fuchs, S., Kuhlicke, C., and Meyer, V.: Editorial for the special issue: Vulnerability to natural hazards - the challenge of integration, Nat. Hazards, 58, 609-619, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9825-5, 2011.
38. Garmendia, E. and Gamboa, G.: Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management, Ecol. Econ., 84, 110-120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.004, 2012.
39. Garmendia, E. and Stagl, S.: Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe, Ecol. Econ., 69, 1712-1722, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.027, 2010.
40. Giannarou, L. and Zervas, E.: Using Delphi technique to build consensus in practice, Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag., 9, 65-82, 2014.
41. Godfrey, A., Ciurean, R. L., van Westen, C. J., Kingma, N. C., and Glade, T.: Assessing vulnerability of buildings to hydrometeorological hazards using an expert based approach - an application in Nehoiu Valley, Romania, Int. J. Disast. Risk Re., 13, 229-241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.06.001, 2015.
42. Horlitz, T.: The role of model interfaces for participation in water management, Water Resour. Manag., 21, 1091-1102, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9100-9, 2007.
43. Howarth, R. B. and Wilson, M. A.: A theoretical approach to deliberative valuation: Aggregation by mutual consent, Land Econ., 82, 1-16, https://doi.org/10.2307/27647687, 2006.
44. IBGE: Censo demográfico 2010, available at: Http://www.ibge.gov. br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2010/default.shtm, last access: 18 November 2016, 2010.
45. IBGE: Atlas de Saneamento, Brasília, 2011.
46. IBGE: Cidades, available at: Http://cidades.ibge.gov.br/v3/cidades/ home-cidades, last access: 30 March 2017.
47. Jongman, B., Winsemius, H. C., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Coughlan de Perez, E., van Aalst, M. K., Kron, W., and Ward, P. J.: Declining vulnerability to river floods and the global benefits of adaptation, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112, E2271-E2280, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414439112, 2015.
48. Kappes, M. S., Papathoma-Köhle, M., and Keiler, M.: Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology, Appl. Geogr., 32, 577-590, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.07.002, 2012.
49. Kienberger, S., Lang, S., and Zeil, P.: Spatial vulnerability units - expert-based spatial modelling of socio-economic vulnerability in the Salzach catchment, Austria, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 767-778, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-767-2009, 2009.
50. Kissinger, A., Noack, V., Knopf, S., Konrad, W., Scheer, D., and Class, H.: Regional-scale brine migration along vertical pathways due to CO2 injection - Part 2: A simulated case study in the North German Basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2751-2775, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2751-2017, 2017.
51. Koks, E. E., Jongman, B., Husby, T. G., and Botzen, W. J. W.: Combining hazard, exposure and social vulnerability to provide lessons for flood risk management, Environ. Sci. Policy, 47, 42- 52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.013, 2015.
52. Kowalski, K., Stagl, S., Madlener, R., and Omann, I.: Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 197, 1063-1074, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.12.049, 2009.
53. Krueger, T., Page, T., Hubacek, K., Smith, L., and Hiscock, K.: The role of expert opinion in environmental modelling, Environ. Modell. Softw., 36, 4-18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.01.011, 2012.
54. Ledwith, M. and Springett, J.: Participatory Practice: Community-Based Action for Transformative Change, The Policy Press, Bristol, 2009.
55. Lilburne, L. and Tarantola, S.: Sensitivity analysis of spatial models, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 23, 151-168, https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810802094995, 2009.
56. Linstone, H. A. and Turoff, M.: The Delphi Method - Techniques and Applications, available at: Https://web.njit.edu/∼turoff/pubs/ delphibook/delphibook.pdf, last access: 11 January 2018, 2002.
57. Malczewski, J. and Rinner, C.: Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science, 2015.
58. Maskrey, S. A., Mount, N. J., Thorne, C. R., and Dryden, I.: Participatory modelling for stakeholder involvement in the development of flood risk management intervention options, Environ. Modell. Softw., 82, 275-294, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.04.027, 2016.
59. Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., and Thieken, A.: Review article "Assessment of economic flood damage", Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 1697-1724, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010, 2010.
60. MI: Sistema integrado de informações sobre desastres - S2ID, available at: Https://s2id.mi.gov.br/, last access: 1 June 2017.
61. Morgan, D. L.: Focus groups, in: Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, vol. 2, Elsevier, 51-57, 2005.
62. MS: Portal do departamento de informática do SUS, Ministério da Saúde (MS), available at: Http://datasus.saude.gov.br/, last access: 31 March 2017, 2016.
63. Müller, A., Reiter, J., andWeiland, 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, 2107-2123, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-2107-2011, 2011.
64. Müller, M. O., Groesser, S. N., and Ulli-Beer, S.: How do we know who to include in collaborative research? Toward a method for the identification of experts, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 216, 495-502, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.014, 2012.
65. Orsi, F., Geneletti, D., and Newton, A. C.: Towards a common set of criteria and indicators to identify forest restoration priorities: An expert panel-based approach, Ecol. Indic., 11, 337-347, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.06.001, 2011.
66. Ossadnik, W., Schinke, S., and Kaspar, R. H.: Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: A comparative analysis, Group Decis. Negot., 25, 421- 457, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9448-4, 2016.
67. Oulahen, G., Mortsch, L., Tang, K., and Harford, D.: Unequal vulnerability to flood hazards: "ground truthing" a social vulnerability index of five municipalities in Metro Vancouver, Canada, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 105, 473-495, https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1012634, 2015.
68. Ozturk, U., Tarakegn, Y. A., Longoni, L., Brambilla, D., Papini, M., and Jensen, J.: A simplified early-warning system for imminent landslide prediction based on failure index fragility curves developed through numerical analysis, Geomat. Nat. Haz. Risk, 5705, 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2015.1058863, 2015.
69. Paneque Salgado, P., Corral Quintana, S., Guimarães Pereira, Â., del Moral Ituarte, L., and Pedregal Mateos, B.: Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga), Ecol. Econ., 68, 990-1005, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.008, 2009.
70. Papathoma-Köhle, M.: Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: Application of an indicator-based methodology for debrisflow hazards, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1771-1790, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1771-2016, 2016.
71. Reilly, B.: Disaster and Human History: Case Studies in Nature, Society and Catastrophe, McFarland, Jefferson, 2009.
72. Riabacke, M., Danielson, M., and Ekenberg, L.: State-of-the-art prescriptive criteria weight elicitation, Adv. Decis. Sci., 2012, 276584, https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/276584, 2012.
73. Roy, B.: Méthodologie Multicritère d'Aide à la Décision, Economica, Paris, 1985.
74. Roy, D. C. and Blaschke, T.: Spatial vulnerability assessment of floods in the coastal regions of Bangladesh, Geomat. Nat. Haz. Risk, 5705, 1-24, https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2013.816785, 2013.
75. Rufat, S., Tate, E., Burton, C. G., and Maroof, A. S.: Social vulnerability to floods: Review of case studies and implications for measurement, Int. J. Disast. Risk Re., 14, 470-486, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.09.013, 2015.
76. Saaty, T. L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
77. Saaty, T. L.: Fundamentals of the Analytic Network Process, ISAHP 1999, Kobe, Japan, 12-14 August 1999.
78. Saaty, T. L.: Fundamentals of the analytic network process - dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network, J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng., 13, 129-157, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0158-y, 2004.
79. Sheppard, S. R. J. and Meitner, M.: Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups, Forest. Ecol. Manag., 207, 171-187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032, 2005.
80. Siqueira, V. A., Collischonn, W., Fan, F. M., and Chou, S. C.: Ensemble flood forecasting based on operational forecasts of the regional Eta EPS in the Taquari-Antas basin, Braz. J. Water Resour., 21, 587-602, https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0331.011616004, 2016.
81. Smith, M. J., Goodchild,M. F., and Longley, P. A.: Geospatial Analysis: A Comprehensive Guide to Principles, Techniques, and Software Tools, 2008.
82. Stirling, A.: "Opening up" and "closing down": Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology, Sci. Technol. Hum. Val., 33, 262-294, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265, 2008.
83. Strager, M. P. and Rosenberger, R. S.: Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: weights and measures in spatial MCA, Ecol. Econ., 58, 79-92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.024, 2006.
84. Tate, E.: Social vulnerability indices: A comparative assessment using uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, Nat. Hazards, 63, 325- 347, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0152-2, 2012.
85. Tsubaki, R., Bricker, J. D., Ichii, K., and Kawahara, Y.: Development of fragility curves for railway embankment and ballast scour due to overtopping flood flow, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2455-2472, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2455-2016, 2016.
86. UNISDR: Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, UNISDR, Geneva, 2009.
87. Voinov, A. and Bousquet, F.: Modelling with stakeholders, Environ. Modell. Softw., 25, 1268-1281, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007, 2010.
88. Vojinovic, Z., Hammond, M., Golub, D., Hirunsalee, S., Weesakul, S., Meesuk, V., Medina, N., Sanchez, A., Kumara, S., and Abbott, M.: Holistic approach to flood risk assessment in areas with cultural heritage: A practical application in Ayutthaya, Thailand, Nat. Hazards, 81, 589-616, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2098-7, 2016.
89. Walker, W. E., Harremoes, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J. P., van Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., and von Krauss, M. P. K.: Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support, Integr. Assess., 4, 5-17, https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466, 2003.
90. Wright, R. and Stein, M.: Snowball sampling, in: Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Vol. 3, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00087-6, 495-500, 2005.
91. van den Hove, S.: Between consensus and compromise: Acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches, Land use policy, 23, 10-17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.09.001, 2006.