斯洛伐克米爪哇上游和特普利察河各市减少洪水风险的备选方案评估

L. Michaleje
{"title":"斯洛伐克米爪哇上游和特普利察河各市减少洪水风险的备选方案评估","authors":"L. Michaleje","doi":"10.31577/geogrcas.2021.73.4.20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Flood risk management often uses multi-criteria analyses, which allow the most suitable alternatives for flood risk reduction to be chosen. We used the SAW (Simple additive weighting), AHP (Analytical hierarchy process) and TOPSIS (Technique for the order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution) methods to evaluate the alternatives in seven cadastral areas of the Upper Myjava and Teplica river basins. Economic, social, environmental, and technical criteria were chosen based on literature research. We compared the current situation (A0), alternatives proposed by watercourse administrators (A1), endangered inhabitants (A2), alternatives based on previous flood risk research (A3) and a combination of the previous (A5-A7). Most expensive alternatives include building new water structures, alternatives with lectures had the highest social impact and none of the alternatives had a significant effect on the environment. With three different sets of weights, we obtained 9 sets of results. In most cases, A3 was in the first place as the best alternative for flood risk reduction. With the TOPSIS method, the results were different. In cadastral areas where seven alternatives were compared, the A5 or A7 get first place. At the same time, we analysed the methods of selecting the most suitable alternative by watercourse managers, which showed a few shortcomings.","PeriodicalId":35652,"journal":{"name":"GEOGRAFICKY CASOPIS-Geographical Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the flood risk reduction alternatives in municipalities of the upper Myjava and Teplica rivers, Slovakia\",\"authors\":\"L. Michaleje\",\"doi\":\"10.31577/geogrcas.2021.73.4.20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Flood risk management often uses multi-criteria analyses, which allow the most suitable alternatives for flood risk reduction to be chosen. We used the SAW (Simple additive weighting), AHP (Analytical hierarchy process) and TOPSIS (Technique for the order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution) methods to evaluate the alternatives in seven cadastral areas of the Upper Myjava and Teplica river basins. Economic, social, environmental, and technical criteria were chosen based on literature research. We compared the current situation (A0), alternatives proposed by watercourse administrators (A1), endangered inhabitants (A2), alternatives based on previous flood risk research (A3) and a combination of the previous (A5-A7). Most expensive alternatives include building new water structures, alternatives with lectures had the highest social impact and none of the alternatives had a significant effect on the environment. With three different sets of weights, we obtained 9 sets of results. In most cases, A3 was in the first place as the best alternative for flood risk reduction. With the TOPSIS method, the results were different. In cadastral areas where seven alternatives were compared, the A5 or A7 get first place. At the same time, we analysed the methods of selecting the most suitable alternative by watercourse managers, which showed a few shortcomings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GEOGRAFICKY CASOPIS-Geographical Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GEOGRAFICKY CASOPIS-Geographical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31577/geogrcas.2021.73.4.20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GEOGRAFICKY CASOPIS-Geographical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31577/geogrcas.2021.73.4.20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

洪水风险管理通常使用多标准分析,这允许选择最合适的替代方案来降低洪水风险。采用SAW (Simple additive weighting)、AHP (Analytical hierarchy process)和TOPSIS (technology for preference order by similarity by ideal solution)方法对上Myjava和Teplica河流域7个地籍区进行了备选方案评价。在文献研究的基础上选择经济、社会、环境和技术标准。我们比较了现状(A0)、水道管理者提出的备选方案(A1)、濒危居民(A2)、基于先前洪水风险研究的备选方案(A3)以及之前的综合方案(A5-A7)。最昂贵的替代方案包括建造新的水结构,讲课的替代方案具有最高的社会影响,而且没有一种替代方案对环境产生重大影响。使用三组不同的权重,我们得到了9组结果。在大多数情况下,A3是降低洪水风险的最佳选择。使用TOPSIS方法,结果是不同的。在7个备选方案的地籍区比较中,A5或A7排名第一。同时,分析了河道管理者选择最合适方案的方法,指出了其不足之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Assessment of the flood risk reduction alternatives in municipalities of the upper Myjava and Teplica rivers, Slovakia
Flood risk management often uses multi-criteria analyses, which allow the most suitable alternatives for flood risk reduction to be chosen. We used the SAW (Simple additive weighting), AHP (Analytical hierarchy process) and TOPSIS (Technique for the order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution) methods to evaluate the alternatives in seven cadastral areas of the Upper Myjava and Teplica river basins. Economic, social, environmental, and technical criteria were chosen based on literature research. We compared the current situation (A0), alternatives proposed by watercourse administrators (A1), endangered inhabitants (A2), alternatives based on previous flood risk research (A3) and a combination of the previous (A5-A7). Most expensive alternatives include building new water structures, alternatives with lectures had the highest social impact and none of the alternatives had a significant effect on the environment. With three different sets of weights, we obtained 9 sets of results. In most cases, A3 was in the first place as the best alternative for flood risk reduction. With the TOPSIS method, the results were different. In cadastral areas where seven alternatives were compared, the A5 or A7 get first place. At the same time, we analysed the methods of selecting the most suitable alternative by watercourse managers, which showed a few shortcomings.
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
22.20%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original and timely scientific articles that advance knowledge in all the fields of geography and significant contributions from the related disciplines. Papers devoted to geographical research of Slovakia and to theoretical and methodological questions of geography are especially welcome. In addition, the journal includes also short research notes, review articles, comments on published papers and reviews of selected publications. Papers are written in the Slovak language with English summary or in English and occasionally in some other world languages.
期刊最新文献
The trade-off between national growth and interregional inequality: Three decades of regional development in Slovakia Development of the geopolitical orientation of the Slovak Republic since 1993 Demographic processes and brief overview of population research in Czechia and Slovakia after dissolution of the common state Land cover changes over the past 30 years in the Demänovka river catchment Evaluation of cross-border cooperation in Czechia since 1993: Euroregions on the way to authentic cross-border regions?
×
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