Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art

This paper provides a review of multi-criteria decision-making  (MCDM) applications to flood risk management, seeking to highlight trends and identify research gaps. A total of 128 peer-reviewed papers published from 1995 to June 2015 were systematically analysed. Results showed that the number of f...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: M. M. de Brito, M. Evers
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2016-04-01
Series:Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Online Access:http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/16/1019/2016/nhess-16-1019-2016.pdf
id doaj-c8a1d3563d784780a79ae47fded32638
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c8a1d3563d784780a79ae47fded326382020-11-25T01:10:16ZengCopernicus PublicationsNatural Hazards and Earth System Sciences1561-86331684-99812016-04-011641019103310.5194/nhess-16-1019-2016Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the artM. M. de Brito0M. Evers1Department of Geography, University of Bonn, Bonn, GermanyDepartment of Geography, University of Bonn, Bonn, GermanyThis paper provides a review of multi-criteria decision-making  (MCDM) applications to flood risk management, seeking to highlight trends and identify research gaps. A total of 128 peer-reviewed papers published from 1995 to June 2015 were systematically analysed. Results showed that the number of flood MCDM publications has exponentially grown during this period, with over 82 % of all papers published since 2009. A wide range of applications were identified, with most papers focusing on ranking alternatives for flood mitigation, followed by risk, hazard, and vulnerability assessment. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was the most popular method, followed by Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). Although there is greater interest in MCDM, uncertainty analysis remains an issue and was seldom applied in flood-related studies. In addition, participation of multiple stakeholders has been generally fragmented, focusing on particular stages of the decision-making process, especially on the definition of criteria weights. Therefore, addressing the uncertainties around stakeholders' judgments and endorsing an active participation in all steps of the decision-making process should be explored in future applications. This could help to increase the quality of decisions and the implementation of chosen measures.http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/16/1019/2016/nhess-16-1019-2016.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author M. M. de Brito
M. Evers
spellingShingle M. M. de Brito
M. Evers
Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
author_facet M. M. de Brito
M. Evers
author_sort M. M. de Brito
title Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art
title_short Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art
title_full Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art
title_fullStr Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art
title_full_unstemmed Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art
title_sort multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
issn 1561-8633
1684-9981
publishDate 2016-04-01
description This paper provides a review of multi-criteria decision-making  (MCDM) applications to flood risk management, seeking to highlight trends and identify research gaps. A total of 128 peer-reviewed papers published from 1995 to June 2015 were systematically analysed. Results showed that the number of flood MCDM publications has exponentially grown during this period, with over 82 % of all papers published since 2009. A wide range of applications were identified, with most papers focusing on ranking alternatives for flood mitigation, followed by risk, hazard, and vulnerability assessment. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was the most popular method, followed by Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). Although there is greater interest in MCDM, uncertainty analysis remains an issue and was seldom applied in flood-related studies. In addition, participation of multiple stakeholders has been generally fragmented, focusing on particular stages of the decision-making process, especially on the definition of criteria weights. Therefore, addressing the uncertainties around stakeholders' judgments and endorsing an active participation in all steps of the decision-making process should be explored in future applications. This could help to increase the quality of decisions and the implementation of chosen measures.
url http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/16/1019/2016/nhess-16-1019-2016.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT mmdebrito multicriteriadecisionmakingforfloodriskmanagementasurveyofthecurrentstateoftheart
AT mevers multicriteriadecisionmakingforfloodriskmanagementasurveyofthecurrentstateoftheart
_version_ 1725175834382172160