Evaluating the Effects of Inundation Duration and Velocity on Selection of Flood Management Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making

被引:35
作者
Ahmadisharaf, Ebrahim [1 ]
Kalyanapu, Alfred J. [2 ]
Chung, Eun-Sung [3 ]
机构
[1] Tennessee Technol Univ, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Cookeville, TN 38505 USA
[2] Tennessee Technol Univ, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Cookeville, TN 38505 USA
[3] Seoul Natl Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Civil Engn, Seoul 139743, South Korea
关键词
Assessment of flood management alternatives; Flood2D-GPU; Spatial compromise programming (SCP); Inundation velocity; Inundation duration; ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; SUPPORT-SYSTEMS; FUZZY TOPSIS; DAMAGE; RISK; VULNERABILITY; MODEL; UNCERTAINTY; RESOLUTION;
D O I
10.1007/s11269-015-0956-4
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Impacts of flood management alternatives are mostly assessed by inundation depth. Other inundation parameters such as velocity and duration are rarely taken into consideration. In this paper, a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) based framework is used to analyze the effects of inundation velocity and duration on evaluation of flood management alternatives. The framework incorporates a two-dimensional (2D) flood model, Flood2D-GPU and a spatial MCDM (SMCDM) method, Spatial Compromise Programming (SCP). Flood2D-GPU is employed to simulate floods and SCP is applied to rank a set of flood management alternatives. Assessment of flood management options is conducted with multiple different weight set scenarios. First, alternatives are ranked without consideration of inundation velocity and duration. Then, the importance of these parameters increases and the alternatives are ordered in each weight set and a GIS map showing the best alternative in each grid cell is generated in each case. Best alternative maps (BAMs) are compared to investigate the impacts of inundation velocity and duration on selection of best strategy using F fit measure and kappa analysis. The framework applicability is illustrated on the Swannanoa River watershed located in the state of North Carolina, US. Case study results indicate up to 49.7 % change of BAM by taking into account inundation velocity and duration. The presented approach addresses the change in selection of flood management strategies resulted by considering other inundation parameters rather than inundation depth. This can potentially reduce the uncertainties associated with the decisions made without consideration of inundation velocity and duration.
引用
收藏
页码:2543 / 2561
页数:19
相关论文
共 53 条
  • [11] Ferziger J. H., 2002, Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, V3
  • [12] Förster S, 2008, NAT HAZARD EARTH SYS, V8, P311
  • [13] A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management
    Hajkowicz, Stefan
    Collins, Kerry
    [J]. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, 2007, 21 (09) : 1553 - 1566
  • [14] Calibration of a two-dimensional finite element flood flow model using satellite radar imagery
    Horritt, MS
    [J]. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2000, 36 (11) : 3279 - 3291
  • [15] Horritt MS, 2001, HYDROL PROCESS, V15, P825, DOI 10.1002/hyp.188
  • [16] Effects of spatial resolution on a raster based model of flood flow
    Horritt, MS
    Bates, PD
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2001, 253 (1-4) : 239 - 249
  • [17] Methods for the estimation of loss of life due to floods: a literature review and a proposal for a new method
    Jonkman, S. N.
    Vrijling, J. K.
    Vrouwenvelder, A. C. W. M.
    [J]. NATURAL HAZARDS, 2008, 46 (03) : 353 - 389
  • [18] Jonkman SN, 2013, LOSS LIFE EVACUATION
  • [19] A fuzzy multi-criteria approach to flood risk vulnerability in South Korea by considering climate change impacts
    Jun, Kyung-Soo
    Chung, Eun-Sung
    Kim, Young-Gyu
    Kim, Yeonjoo
    [J]. EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2013, 40 (04) : 1003 - 1013
  • [20] Annualised risk analysis approach to recommend appropriate level of flood control: application to Swannanoa river watershed
    Kalyanapu, A. J.
    Judi, D. R.
    McPherson, T. N.
    Burian, S. J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, 2015, 8 (04): : 368 - 385