Flood Risk Management Analysis based on Concepts of Hazard, Exposure, and Vulnerability by Providing Frameworks and Models

آب و توسعه پایدار

Article 11, Volume 5, Issue 1 - Serial Number 10, September 2018, Pages 73-82   

Document Type: review paper

DOI: 10.22067/jwsd.v5i1.62313

Authors

mahboobeh hajibigloo^{* 1}; vahedberdi sheikh²

¹Gorgan

²gorgan

Abstract

Flood risk management is a comprehensive approach which includes various evaluation indicators in river basins, it is an effective and sustainable but complex method. Flood risk assessment provides valuable information to assess vulnerability and exposure to hazard. For assessing the flood risk in river basins, several models such as RF, DSS, ANN, RFM, SVM, and GA are used to study the effective parameters of flood risk which have been used in different watersheds for the determination of the importance of these indicators. Determining a suitable model for use on the basin scale requires the consideration of the model suitability for the basin local conditions, data requirements, model complexity, accuracy and validity of the model, model hypothesis, spatial and temporal variation of the model, model components, and user target. In general, there is no model suitable for all conditions. Problems related to the inability to identify, the lack of uniqueness of the model, and the physical incomprehensibility of calibration parameters are some of the issues that are caused by the application of distributive and physical models. These issues also exist in complex conceptual models. To meet the growing needs of field administrators, it is necessary to have tools that can be fully used to investigate the spatial distribution of floods and the transport of river materials. As a general and practical rule, the development of distributed models with a relatively low physical complexity is recommended.

Keywords

Hazard; Vulnerability; Flood risk assessment; Flood risk management; Modeling

References

Ballesteros-Canovas J.A., Sanchez-Silva M., Bodoque J.M., et al. 2013. An integrated approach to flood risk management: a case study of Navaluenga (Central Spain). Water Resour. Manage Journal, 27(8): 3051–3069.

Balli S. and Korukoglu S. 2009. Operating system selection using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. J. Mathematical and Computational Applications Journal, 14(2): 119-130.

Chen X. and Ishwaran H . 2012. Random forests for genomic data analysis. Genomics Journal, 99(6): 323–329.

Deng H. and Runge G. 2013. Gene selection with guided regularized random forest. Pattern Recogn Journal, 46(12): 3483–3489.

Dong L.J., Li X.B. and Peng K. 2013. Prediction of rockburst classification using Random Forest. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China Journal, 23(2): 472–477.

Erdlenbruch K., Thoyer S., Grelot F., Kast R. and Enjolras G. 2009. Risk-sharing in the context of the French Flood Prevention Action Programmes. Environ. Manage Journal, 91: 363–369.

Evers M., Jonoski A., Almoradie A. and Lange L. 2016. Collaborative decision making in sustainable flood risk management: A socio-technical approach and tools for participatory governance. Environmental Science & Policy Journal, 55(1): 335–344.

Falter D., Schröter K., Viet Dung N., Vorogushyn S., Kreibich H., Heiko Apel H. and Merz M. 2015. Spatially coherent flood risk assessment based on long-term continuous simulation with a coupled model chain. Hydrology Journal, 524: 182–193.

Foudi S., Oses-Eraso N. and Tamayo I. 2015. Integrated spatial flood risk assessment: The case of Zaragoza. Land Use Policy Journal, 42: 278–292.

Foudi S. and Oses-Eraso N. 2014. Flood risk management: assessment for prevention with hydro-economic approaches. In: Markandya A., Galarraga I., Sainz de Murieta E. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of the Economics of Climate Change Adaptation. Taylor & Francis.

Guo E.L., Zhang Z.Q. and Ren X.H., et al. 2014. 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 Journal, 74: 947–965.

Horita E.A., Porto de Al buquerque A., Degrossi A., Mendiondo M. and Ueyama A. 2015. Development of a spatial decision support system for flood risk management in Brazil that combines volunteered geographic information with wireless sensor networks. Computers & Geosciences Journal, 80: 84–94.

Immitzer M. , Atzberger C. and Koukal T. 2012. Tree species classification with random forest using very high spatial resolution 8-band worldview-2 satellite data. Remote Sens Journal, 4: 2661–2693.

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change. Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jha A.K., Bloch R. and Lamond J. 2012. Cities and Flooding: A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management for the 21st Century. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

Kaewkitipong L., Chen C. and Ractham P. 2012. Lessons learned from the use of social media in combating a crisis: a case study of 2011 Thailand flooding disaster. In: Proceedings of the 33th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Orlando, USA, 1–17. URL: http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2012/proceed ings/ProjectManagement/8/.

Koks E.E., Jongman B., Husby T.G. and Botzen W.J.W. 2015. Combining hazard, exposure and social vulnerability to provide lessons for flood risk management. Environmental Science & policy Journal, 47: 42–52.

Li X. and Yeh A.G.O. 2002. Neural-network-based cellular automata for simulating multiple land use changes using GIS. Int. Geogr. Inf. Sci. Journal, 16(4): 323–343.

Li Q., Jiang X.W. and Liu D.H. 2013. Analysis and modelling of flood risk assessment using information diffusion and artificial neural network. Water SA Journal, 39: 643–648.

Martens D., Backer M.D., Haesen R., Vanthienen J., Snoeck M. and Baesens B. 2007. Classification with ant colony optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. Journal, 11(5): 651–665.

Mihailescu D., Gui V., Toma C. I., et al. 2013. Computer aided diagnosis method for steatosis rating in ultrasound images using random forests. Med. Ultrason. Journal, 15(3): 184–190.

Ni J.R. and Xue A. 2003. Application of artificial neural network to the rapid feedback of potential ecological risk in flood diversion zone. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. Journal, 16(2): 105–119.

Penning-Rowsell E., Johnson C., Tunstall S., Tapsell S., Morris J., Chatterton J. and Green C. 2005. The Benefits of Flood and Coastal Risk Management: A Handbook of Assessment Techniques. Middlesex University Press.

Said F., Afzal U. and Turner G. 2015. Risk taking and risk learning after a rare event: Evidence from a field experiment in Pakistan. Economic Behavior & Organization Journal, 118: 167–183.

Simonovic S. and Akter T., 2006. Participatory floodplain management in the Red River Basin, Canada. Annual Reviews in Control 30: 183–192.

Stefanidis S. and Stathis D. 2013. Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Nat. Hazards Journal, 68: 569–585.

Stephane H., Colin G., Robert J.N., et al. 2013. Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nat. Climate Change Journal, 3(9): 802–806.

Tingsanchali T. and Karim F. 2010. Flood hazard assessment and risk-based zoning of a

tropical flood plain: case study of the Yom River, Thailand. Hydrol. Sci. J. – J. Sci. Hydrol. Journal, 55(2): 145–161 .

van den Berg M., Fort R. and Burger K. 2009. Natural hazards and risk aversion: experimental evidence from Latin America. In: International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China.

Van Herk S., Rijke J., Zevenberg C. and Ashley R. 2015. Understanding the transition to integrated flood risk management in the Netherlands. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions Journal, 15: 84-100.

Wanga Z., Lai C., Chen X., Yang B., Zhao S. and Bai X. 2015. Flood hazard risk assessment model based on random forest. Hydrology Journal, 527: 1130–1141.

Yang X.L., Ding J.H. and Hou H. 2013. Application of a triangular fuzzy AHP approach for flood risk evaluation and response measures analysis. Nat. Hazards Journal, 68: 657–674.

Yeh C.C., Chi D.J. and Hsu M.F. 2010. A hybrid approach of DEA, rough set and support vector machines for business failure prediction. Expert Syst. Appl. Journal, 37(2): 1535–1541.

Zou Q., Zhou J.Z., Zhou C., Song L.X. and Guo J. 2013. Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess Journal, 27: 525–546.