Search results

This paper presents a participatory multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach for flood vulnerability assessment while considering the relationships between vulnerability criteria. The applicability of the proposed framework is demonstrated in the municipalities of Lajeado and Estrela, Brazil. The model was co-constructed by 101 experts from governmental organizations, universities, research institutes, NGOs, and private companies. Participatory methods such as the Delphi survey, focus groups, and workshops were applied. A participatory problem structuration, in which the modellers work closely with end users, was used to establish the structure of the vulnerability index. The preferences of each participant regarding the criteria importance were spatially modelled through the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and analytical network process (ANP) multi-criteria methods. Experts were also involved at the end of the modelling exercise for validation. The final product is a set of individual and group flood vulnerability maps. Both AHP and ANP proved to be effective for flood vulnerability assessment; however, ANP is preferred as it considers the dependences among criteria. The participatory approach enabled experts to learn from each other and acknowledge different perspectives towards social learning. The findings highlight that to enhance the credibility and deployment of model results, multiple viewpoints should be integrated without forcing consensus.

This paper presents a participatory multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach for flood vulnerability assessment while considering the relationships between vulnerability criteria. The applicability of the proposed framework is demonstrated in the municipalities of Lajeado and Estrela, Brazil. The model was co-constructed by 101 experts from governmental organizations, universities, research institutes, NGOs, and private companies. Participatory methods such as the Delphi survey, focus groups, and workshops were applied. A participatory problem structuration, in which the modellers work closely with end users, was used to establish the structure of the vulnerability index. The preferences of each participant regarding the criteria importance were spatially modelled through the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and analytical network process (ANP) multi-criteria methods. Experts were also involved at the end of the modelling exercise for validation. The final product is a set of individual and group flood vulnerability maps. Both AHP and ANP proved to be effective for flood vulnerability assessment; however, ANP is preferred as it considers the dependences among criteria. The participatory approach enabled experts to learn from each other and acknowledge different perspectives towards social learning. The findings highlight that to enhance the credibility and deployment of model results, multiple viewpoints should be integrated without forcing consensus.

Integrating both modeling approach and stakeholders' perspectives to derive past and future trends of land use land cover (LULC) is a key to creating more realistic results on LULC change trajectories and can lead to the implementation of appropriate management measures. This article assessed the past changes of LULC in the Mono River catchment using Landsat images from the years 1986, 2000, 2010, and 2020 by performing Machine Learning Classification Method Random Forest (RF) technique, and using Markov chain method and stakeholder's perspective to simulate future LULC changes for the years 2030 and 2050. LULC was classified as savanna, cropland, forest, water bodies, and settlement. The results showed that croplands and forests areas declined from 2020 to 2050 with decreases of −7.8% and −1.9%, respectively, a modest increase in settlement (1.3%), and savanna was the dominant LULC in the study region with an increase of 8.5%. From stakeholders' perspective, rapid population growth, deforestation, rainfall variability/flood, urbanization, and agricultural expansion were the most important drivers associated with the observed LULC changes in the area. Other factors, such as lack of political commitment, distance to river, and elevation were also mentioned. Additionally, most the land-use scenarios identified by stakeholders would intensify land degradation and reduce ecosystem services in the area. By considering all of these potential LULC changes, decision-makers need to develop and implement appropriate solutions (e.g., land use planning strategies, reforestation campaigns, forest protection measures) in order to limit the negative effects of future LULC changes.

Abstract. This paper presents an approach to enhance the role of local stakeholders in dealing with urban floods. The concept is based on the DIANE-CM project (Decentralised Integrated Analysis and Enhancement of Awareness through Collaborative Modelling and Management of Flood Risk) of the 2nd ERANET CRUE funding initiative. The main objective of the project was to develop and test an advanced methodology for enhancing the resilience of local communities to flooding. Through collaborative modelling, a social learning process was initiated that enhances the social capacity of the stakeholders due to the interaction process. The other aim of the project was to better understand how data from hazard and vulnerability analyses and improved maps, as well as from the near real-time flood prediction, can be used to initiate a public dialogue (i.e. collaborative mapping and planning activities) in order to carry out more informed and shared decision-making processes and to enhance flood risk awareness. The concept of collaborative modelling was applied in two case studies: (1) the Cranbrook catchment in the UK, with focus on pluvial flooding; and (2) the Alster catchment in Germany, with focus on fluvial flooding. As a result of the interactive and social learning process, supported by sociotechnical instruments, an understanding of flood risk was developed amongst the stakeholders and alternatives for flood risk management for the respective case study area were jointly developed and ranked as a basis for further planning and management.