使用多标准决策方法确定结构性洪水控制解决方案的优先次序:伊朗案例研究

IF 3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Journal of Flood Risk Management Pub Date : 2024-04-10 DOI:10.1111/jfr3.12991
Hossein Hamidifar, Faezeh Yaghoubi, Pawel M. Rowinski
{"title":"使用多标准决策方法确定结构性洪水控制解决方案的优先次序:伊朗案例研究","authors":"Hossein Hamidifar,&nbsp;Faezeh Yaghoubi,&nbsp;Pawel M. Rowinski","doi":"10.1111/jfr3.12991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Effective management of flood risks requires the prioritization of appropriate flood control solutions. This study aims to prioritize structural flood control options using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Four MCDM methods, namely analytic hierarchy process, technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution, multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution, and Fuzzy-VIKOR are employed to assess and rank the flood control options based on multiple criteria. Field surveys, interviews with local authorities and experts, and on-site assessments of existing flood control structures constituted the primary data collection methods. The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of reservoir dams, retention basins, and levees as viable solutions. Conversely, flood control gates and the no-project options were assigned lower priorities. The findings highlight the importance of considering multiple MCDM methods to account for variations in rankings. The study provides valuable insights into the decision-making process for prioritizing flood control options in the study area. These findings can assist policymakers and stakeholders in effectively allocating resources and implementing appropriate structural flood control measures to mitigate flood risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":49294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Flood Risk Management","volume":"17 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jfr3.12991","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using multi-criteria decision-making methods in prioritizing structural flood control solutions: A case study from Iran\",\"authors\":\"Hossein Hamidifar,&nbsp;Faezeh Yaghoubi,&nbsp;Pawel M. Rowinski\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jfr3.12991\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Effective management of flood risks requires the prioritization of appropriate flood control solutions. This study aims to prioritize structural flood control options using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Four MCDM methods, namely analytic hierarchy process, technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution, multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution, and Fuzzy-VIKOR are employed to assess and rank the flood control options based on multiple criteria. Field surveys, interviews with local authorities and experts, and on-site assessments of existing flood control structures constituted the primary data collection methods. The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of reservoir dams, retention basins, and levees as viable solutions. Conversely, flood control gates and the no-project options were assigned lower priorities. The findings highlight the importance of considering multiple MCDM methods to account for variations in rankings. The study provides valuable insights into the decision-making process for prioritizing flood control options in the study area. These findings can assist policymakers and stakeholders in effectively allocating resources and implementing appropriate structural flood control measures to mitigate flood risks.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Flood Risk Management\",\"volume\":\"17 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jfr3.12991\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Flood Risk Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfr3.12991\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Flood Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfr3.12991","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

要有效管理洪水风险,就必须对适当的洪水控制解决方案进行优先排序。本研究旨在利用多标准决策(MCDM)方法对结构性洪水控制方案进行优先排序。研究采用了四种 MCDM 方法,即层次分析法、与理想方案相似性排序偏好技术、多标准优化和折中方案以及模糊-VIKOR,根据多种标准对防洪方案进行评估和排序。实地调查、与地方当局和专家的访谈以及对现有防洪设施的现场评估构成了主要的数据收集方法。研究结果表明,水库大坝、蓄水池和堤坝是可行的有效解决方案。相反,防洪闸门和无项目方案的优先级较低。研究结果强调了考虑多种 MCDM 方法的重要性,以考虑到排名的变化。本研究为确定研究区域防洪方案优先级的决策过程提供了宝贵的见解。这些研究结果可帮助决策者和利益相关者有效分配资源并实施适当的结构性防洪措施,以减轻洪水风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Using multi-criteria decision-making methods in prioritizing structural flood control solutions: A case study from Iran

Effective management of flood risks requires the prioritization of appropriate flood control solutions. This study aims to prioritize structural flood control options using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Four MCDM methods, namely analytic hierarchy process, technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution, multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution, and Fuzzy-VIKOR are employed to assess and rank the flood control options based on multiple criteria. Field surveys, interviews with local authorities and experts, and on-site assessments of existing flood control structures constituted the primary data collection methods. The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of reservoir dams, retention basins, and levees as viable solutions. Conversely, flood control gates and the no-project options were assigned lower priorities. The findings highlight the importance of considering multiple MCDM methods to account for variations in rankings. The study provides valuable insights into the decision-making process for prioritizing flood control options in the study area. These findings can assist policymakers and stakeholders in effectively allocating resources and implementing appropriate structural flood control measures to mitigate flood risks.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Flood Risk Management
Journal of Flood Risk Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-WATER RESOURCES
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.30%
发文量
93
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Flood Risk Management provides an international platform for knowledge sharing in all areas related to flood risk. Its explicit aim is to disseminate ideas across the range of disciplines where flood related research is carried out and it provides content ranging from leading edge academic papers to applied content with the practitioner in mind. Readers and authors come from a wide background and include hydrologists, meteorologists, geographers, geomorphologists, conservationists, civil engineers, social scientists, policy makers, insurers and practitioners. They share an interest in managing the complex interactions between the many skills and disciplines that underpin the management of flood risk across the world.
期刊最新文献
Toward Sustainable Flood Resilience: Assessing Efficacy of Paddy Field Dams to Reduce Floods in Jakarta Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle-Based Multispectral Imagery for River Soil Monitoring Putting the English Flooding of 2019–2021 in the Context of Antecedent Conditions Bridge Collapse in Mutsu, Aomori Prefecture, Japan in 2021 Attribution of Flood Forecasting Errors From a Multi-Model Perspective in Milan Urbanized River Basins
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1